The appeal preferred by the Revenue. The issue under consideration is with regard to the bogus purchases conducted by the assessee and as per revenue CIT(Appeals) has erred in granting relief to the assessee without dealing specifically with the facts of the case and even not calling for any remand report from the Assessing Officer.
The issue raised by the assessee challenging the action of AO in holding the income from providing IT support services as taxable for fees for technical services.
The issue under consideration is that confirming the addition made u/s 68 by A.O. in respect of the loan taken from father of the appellant on mere suspicion.
It is evident that the benefit of first proviso would be allowed only if the condition as stipulated in second proviso is satisfied. In other words, the stamp value on the date of agreement to sell shall be considered as full value of consideration only if the amount of consideration or part of such consideration was received by the assessee through banking channel on or before the date of agreement for transfer. This issue, therefore, needs detailed factual verification.
Assessee is a company which had undertaken development of integrated township. The assessee had claimed the license fees received from the persons for the use of the IT Parks provided along with various infra structural and other facilities and services under the head ‘Income from business’. However, the AO had considered the same under the head ‘Income from house property’.
The issue under consideration is whether the assessee can challenge the order of AO for which he has agreed before without there being any contrary evidence?
Whatever rights the assessee acquired in the said plot started from 1997, during which year the substantial payment for purchase consideration was also made. The said consideration was recognized in the later registered document, which established the case of assessee of having acquired the rights way back in 1997. Accordingly, the gains arising on transfer of development rights in the hands of assessee would be assessed as ‘long-term capital gains’.
Uday Gopal Bhaskarwar Vs ACIT (ITAT Pune) ITAT explains Provisions of Clubbing of Income of Wife with Husband- Allows Losses of F&O Business of Wife to be clubbed with Income of Husband Where the spouse (husband) of an individual (wife) transfers some assets otherwise than for adequate consideration or in connection with an agreement to […]
It was held that DRP’s direction to the AO for carrying out a fresh examination of the claim of the assessee u/s.10A of the Act is in violation of the clear mandate of the provisions and hence cannot be countenanced.
Sakharam Bhondve Vs ITO (ITAT Pune) The issue under consideration is whether the deduction u/s 54F for reinvestment against Capital gain in the name of wife and son will be allowed or not? As per the judgement of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Kamal Wahal (supra): “It also noted that a […]
