Since final consideration was paid and the possession of flat was received within a period of one year prior to the date of transfer of capital asset, then the same should be considered as the date of purchase, so as to allow the benefit of deduction under section 54F to assessee.
Alfa Laval India Ltd. case: Difference between the Net Present Value against the future liability credited by the assessee under the capital reserve account in its books of account, is a capital receipt, the addition made on account of the gain on settlement of the sales tax deferred liability not taxable
Rajkumar B. Agarwal Vs DCIT (ITAT Pune) No addition on account of jewellery items on seized documents did not tally with description of jewellery in Wealth-tax returns in case total weight of jewellery was same Conclusion: Where total gold jewellery in weight found at the time of search matched with the earlier declarations made by […]
Shri Govind Gangadhar Sabane Vs ITO (ITAT Pune) There is no dispute to the fact that one capital asset was sold and thereafter, new house was constructed. That both the Revenue Authorities in their respective orders have agreed that the Inspector had visited the site and has reported that residential house has been constructed consisting […]
EPRSS Prepaid Recharge Services India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Pune) Tribunal further observed that there was no amendment in the DTAA between the two countries analogous to the Explanation 5 to section 9(1) of the Act and accordingly Amazon was not chargeable to tax in respect of Web hosting charges received from the assessee […]
Once assessee empowers his Authorised represntative to appear before authorities, all of authorised representatives concessions were binding on assessee and there was no need to ignore any concession made by Authorised representative and personally call upon assessee to make concession in every case.
Where the amount of insurance claim was less than the amount of actual expenditure incurred on re-construction/renovation, no short term capital gain u/s. 45(1A) could be charged under such circumstances.
Assessee had declared additional incomes when AO confronted with details of Form No. 26AS , it could not be said that declaration of income by assessee was voluntary, therefore, levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) on account of concealment was justified, especially in view of the fact that similar income had been earned and duly offered to tax during earlier years also.
Assessee could not be held liable for levy of late filing charges under section 234E for the period prior to June, 2015 in the absence of amendment to section 200A, which was brought on Statute from 1-6-2015.
Assessee was only using services provided by Amazon and was not concerned with the rights in technology. The fees paid by assessee was for use of technology and cannot be said to be for use of royalty,
