Late Smt. Abida Mohammed Rakhangi Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)- ITAT held that we cannot also shut our eyes to reality of Indian lives wherein there is a love, pride and preference of Indian households to invest and hold gold ornaments etc for their usage as well for rainy days wherein gold can be sold to […]
Though agricultural land sold by assessee had remained barren for a longer period and had been converted by purchaser thereof into non-agricultural land, however, AO could not give any cogent and convincing reason for disbelieving documentary and circumstantial evidence furnished by assessee prima facie establishing the land in question to be an agricultural land, he was not, therefore, justified in treating the same as capital asset.
Section 54F does not cast any statutory obligation on the part of assessee to file his return of income within the stipulated time period contemplated u/s 139 or 148 of the ‘Act’, as a precondition for entitling him to claim exemption under the said statutory provision.
Admittedly, possession of the property was not handed over during assessment year 2008-09 and mere execution of agreement for the development of the property could not amount to transfer under section 2(47) of the Act row with section 53A of the transfer of property Act are satisfied as such there can no transfer be considered in the year under consideration.
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -20, Mumbai dated 17.04.2014 for the Assessment Year 2010-11. The only grievance of the assessee in his appeal is that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in denying the deduction u/s 54 of the Act.
If the AO has not rejected the books of accounts and has only doubted the genuineness of the suppliers but not the genuineness of the purchases and if the payments are made by account payee cheques, s. 69C is not attracted. S. 69C cannot be applied where all purchase and sales transactions are part of regular books of accounts. The basic precondition for invoking s. 69C is that the expenditure incurred by the assessee should be out of books of accounts
The said interest income had been earned by the assessee out of business compulsions of deposits in the ‘Debit Service Reserve Account’, hence the said interest income is linked to the business activities of the assessee. The issue is covered with the decisions of the Tribunal in the own case of the assessee for earlier assessment years. Hence, the interest income of the assessee is ordered to be assessed as Business Income.
While calculating annual rental value for Income from House Property, expenses like brokerage, electricity expenses, legal expenses and bank charges would not be allowed as permissible expenditures as these expenses are not covered under sections 23 and 24 of Income Tax Act, 1961 as permissible expenditure. Full Text of the ITAT Order is as follows:- […]
Government only intended to restrict the investment in a particular financial year and accordingly has fixed the limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- as permissible limit in a particular financial year. The Government did not intend to restrict the maximum amount of exemption permissible under Section 54EC.
The learned AR argued the assessee was entitled to raise additional ground of appeal before the Tribunal, even though the claim had not been made either before Income-tax Officer/AO or the First Appellate Authority. It was further argued that the additional ground of appeal raised by assessee was purely legal in nature.
