The only issue is that when the assessee is not able to get the title of the flat registered in his name or unable to get the possession of the flat, which is under construction, due to fault of the Builder, the assessee cannot be denied deduction u/s 54F of the Act.
The ITAT Mumbai in the above cited case held that Advertising, Promotion and Marketing expenses (AMP) cannot be considered as international transaction unless there exist an agreement between the assessee and its AE to share/reimburse the AMP expenditure incurred by the assessee in India.
The education has got different meaning, purpose or object for each person depending upon its position and background. We have education of various types e.g. Pre-schooling, schooling, higher education, professional education, vocational training, professions training etc etc.
The AO while completing the assessment disallowed the write off of security deposit treating it as capital deposit and by observing that it cannot partake the nature of revenue expenditure. He also observed that this deposit was not offered as income in the books of account and the transaction of passing security deposit is a capital transaction and does not qualify the basic condition that it was credited as income in the past.
The ITAT Mumbai in the above cited case held that the surrounding circumstances and human probabilities attached to a transaction should be examined by considering the transactions as a whole. Therefore, AO cannot decide the geniuses only finding some unusual things but also bound to examine the things which are indicating that the claim of assessee may be genuine.
ITAT Mumbai held that CIT cannot revise assessment for making afresh examination of an issue already examined by the AO who has taken one of the possible views because there has been no erroneous order which could ordered to be revised.
The assessee has been denied the deduction u/s 54F of the Act. the assessee has duly purchased and made investment in the residential bungalow at Juhu(new asset) along with co-owner Smt. Chhaya B. Parekh. The said bungalow was demolished for the purposes of redevelopment.
Assessee had provided a corporate guarantee on behalf of its associated enterprise M/s. Thomas Cook Mauritius Operations Co. Ltd. for banking facilities availed by it from HSBC bank to the extent of Rs.6,01,80,000/-.
AO/CIT(A) have made the addition under section 68 of the Act merely on presumptions, suspicions and surmises in respect of penny stocks; disregarding the direct evidences placed on record and furnished by the assessee in the form of brokers contract notes for purchases and sales of the ‘said shares’
Since redemption of preference shares does not result in reduction of share capital as per Sec 80 of the Companies Act,1956 , the redemption value cannot be taxed as deemed dividend as the distribution of profits if at all there may be is not resulting in reduction of capital.
