whether AO is correct in disallowing the exemption u/s 54F on the ground that residential flat was not constructed after the date of transfer and they were constructed alongwith saleable flats?
Various additions/disallowances made by AO were clearly beyond the scope of authority vested under s.153A owing to absence of any incriminating material or evidence deduced as a result of search in so far as completed assessments were concerned and the same was not permissible in law.
The issue under consideration is whether the expenses incurred against the retention money or unrealised income is allowed under mercantile system of accounting?
Bajrang Lal Naredi Vs ITO (ITAT Ranchi) In the instant appeal, the applicability of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act as amended by Finance Act, 2013 and applicable to AY 2014-15 in question. On a perusal of pre-amended provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, we gather that where an individual or HUF receives from any […]
whether AO is correct in holding that the assessee was not entitled exemption u/s.54 of the Act by rejecting the claim of the assessee to have deposited in capital gain deposit account?
Pr. CIT has proceeded to revise the scrutiny assessment order and directing the AO to decide the issue afresh i.e. for making rowing enquiry which is not permissible u/s.263 of the Act.
St. Barnabas Hospital Vs C.I.T (Exemption) (ITAT Ranchi) We note that the society trust was maintaining Pharmacy medical shop inside the hospital, which was for in-house consumption of medicines and treatment packages and for the urgent need of medicines to in-house patients. We note that the objects of the society were not doubted by the […]
Sri Sachin Sharma Vs ACIT (ITAT Ranchi) A perusal of provisions of section 194C of the Act shows that a person is liable to deduct TDS when a contract for work is of an amount more than Rs.30,000/- or where payment for work is made to a person more than Rs.75,000/- during the financial year. […]
Since trade advances obtained by assessee from its sister concern were in the nature of commercial transactions, would not fall within the ambit of the word ‘advance’ in section 2(22)(e).
M/s. Gulf Steel & Minerals Vs ITO (ITAT Ranchi) The AO is wrong in making the impugned addition on account of sundry creditor, which are related to purchases and the same also accepted by the AO as genuine. Without rejecting the purchases, the sundry creditors cannot be treated as income of assessee Therefore, addition made by […]
