In the case before us was entitled to claim exemption u/s. 54 to the extent he had invested towards the purchase of the new residential property under consideration upto the date of filing of his revised return of income under Sec. 139(5) i. e. on 15. 11. 2014.
ITO Vs Smt. Jaya Deepak Bhavnani (ITAT Mumbai) Legal fiction created in Section 50 is to deem capital gain as short term capital gain and not to deem an asset as short term capital asset and therefore it cannot be said that Section 50 converts long term capital asset into short term capital asset and […]
M/s. SDB Estate Private Limited Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) We find that the assessee, in this case, had filed detailed evidence to prove the genuineness of transactions e.g. copies of form for allotment of shares, confirmation of shareholders and other documents as mentioned above. The department has relied upon the general statement of Shri Mukesh […]
ITO Vs M/s Smart Sensors & Transducers Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) As regards to set off of business loss against gain on sale of depreciable asset of factory building by the assessee, we find that the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Raj Shree Roadlines vs ITO (ITA No.1627/Mum/2012) for A.Y . […]
ITO Vs Sanjay Gurudasmal Chawla (ITAT Mumbai) We observe that the claim made by the assessee in the form of a letter and by way of revised computation of income in the course of the assessment proceedings was never entertained by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer has not gone into the claim at all. […]
Kaushik D. Mistry Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) So far as the question of deduction u/s 54 is concerned, we find that the assessee has not acquired the ownership rights in the new property but merely acquired tenancy right which could not be equated with ownership rights. The conditions of Section 54 as well as Section […]
Airport Retail P. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Conclusion: Payments towards bank charges for credit card payments were not liable for TDS under section 194H as the same was not a commission. Held: Assessee had made payments towards bank charges for credit card payments . AO made the additions as assessee made payment without deduction […]
Addition under section 68 on basis of information received from investigation wing as to assessee having received share application money from alleged entry operator was not justified as assessee had filed sufficient evidences and details to prove identity and creditworthiness of share application and genuineness of transaction of receipt of share application money
To compute disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D AO was directed to consider only those investments which had yielded exempt income during the year.
Amount advanced by Portescap to Videojet in which assessee was a common shareholder holding substantial shareholding could not be termed as loan falling within the purview of sec. 2(22)(e) as the same was shown in the balance-sheet of Portescap as well as Videojet as inter-corporate deposit (ICD).
