A bench comprising Vijay Pal Rao (JM) and Vikram Singh Yadav (AM) of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) recently declared that Interest u/s 234B of the Income Tax Act can be levied on ground of non-payment of advance tax in respect of Alternative Minimum Tax.
Merely for the reason that new residential house property has been purchased by assessee in wife name, same cannot be basis for denial of deduction claimed u/s 54F.
No scrutiny proceedings can be initiated if notice under section 143(2) is not received by assessee within the prescribed period.
Where the CIT(A) was already ceased of the matter wherein the matter has been contested before him by the AO, the ld. Pr. CIT does not have the jurisdiction to exercise his powers u/s 263 of the Act on the same matter as per the explicit provisions contained in clause (c) to explanation 1 to section 263 of the Act.
When assessee himself had adopted value of land as per Stamp Duty Authority for computation of long-term capital gain, then he could not claim adoption of the value of land as estimated by DVO, as he filed return of income and paid taxes, also there was no scope of reduction.
Development fee payment was not optional or voluntary on the part of the students but it was compulsory charge in the nature of fee for studying and continuing study in the institutions of the assessee, therefore, development fee received by assessee could not be classified as capital in nature for specific purpose or part of corpus fund of assessee trust. It was part of the current receipt and partook the character of other fee charged by assessee on account of tuition fee, term fee, etc.
Penalty order u/s 271D and 271E would reckon from the date when the show cause notice was issued by the AO and not from the date when the show cause notice was issued by the Joint Commissioner who is competent to pass the penalty orders.
Order of penalty passed under sections 271D and 271E was to set aside as the same was passed after expiry of six months from the action initiated for imposition of penalty and barred by limitation as per section 275(1)(c).
M/s Drawmet Wires Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITAT Jaipur) It is settled proposition of law that DDT is chargeable only in the year when it is declared, distributed or paid and not prior to that. In the case on hand the assessee has produced all relevant record to show that the dividend was proposed by […]
Merely because construction of new house was started prior to transfer of original asset, deduction under section 54F cannot be denied, if the construction was completed within three years of transfer.
