Whether the ex-parte order of the CIT(Exemptions) denying 80G exemption is justified in law? ITAT dismissed ex-parte order of CIT(E) on the basis of principles of natural justice
Issues have been examined by the A.O and just because the opinion as arrived by the A.O is at a variation of the opinion of the learned Pr. CIT, would not grant the learned Pr. CIT the powers of revision u/s 263 of the Act.
Existence of reasons for escapement of income are sine qua non to embark upon the assessment or reassessment u/s 147 of the Act. Change or no change of opinion, as argued by the ld. DR, are the factors to be considered after fulfilling the jurisdictional condition of there being an escapement of income, in the absence of which no assessment or reassessment can be made u/s 147.
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’.
