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 […]
After considering audited balance-sheet, opening cash balance and closing cash balance, AO had not doubted closing cash balance of cash as on 31-3-2011. Also, assessee had pointed out that over all cash balance had remained the same. Thus, lesser opening cash balance as on 1-4-2002 did not call for any addition during the year under consideration as no unexplained cash was introduced in books of account.
The Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax wants the Assessing officer to look into various other issues of the assessee which were not covered within the purview of the
Kirloskar Oil Engines Limited Vs JCIT (ITAT Pune) The issue under consideration is whether the disallowance made for commission paid to director u/s. 40A(2) is justified? ITAT states that, the assessee is against disallowance of commission paid to Shri Atul Kirloskar u/s. 40A(2) of the Act. It is an undisputed fact that in earlier assessment […]
ITO Vs Smt. Uma Dnyanoba Bhintade (ITAT Pune) The limited issue which arises in the present appeal filed by Revenue is against directions of CIT(A) in allowing the benefit claimed under section 54B of the Act by Assessing Officer, in case the assessee has fulfilled all the conditions laid down in the said section. Admittedly, […]
The issue under consideration is whether Non-furnishing of reasons recorded for reopening of assessment made the entire assessment u/s 147 invalid in law?
