It is apparent from bare reading of section 54F that the exemption becomes available towards capital gain arising from the transfer of any long term capital asset on purchasing or constructing one residential house in India. Thus, it is patent that in order to qualify for exemption u/s.54F, it is necessary that the new asset must be a ‘residential house’.
Yogesh Parashram Pangarkar Vs ITO (ITAT Pune) As per Income Tax Rule 6F the appellant i.e. Doctor has to maintain the books of accounts mentioned in the Rule 6F. The ld.AR submitted that the appellant is maintaining cash book and petty cash book. Even before the ld.CIT(A) the appellant had submitted that the appellant maintained […]
Hariom Associates Vs ITO (ITAT Pune) It is seen that the assessee purchased the land in the financial year ending 31-03-2006. Development expenses amounting to Rs.2.00 lakh were also incurred in that year. Before the close of the year ending on 31.3.2006, the assessee came to know about a litigation going-on on this plot. Development […]
Vandana Maruti Pathare Vs ITO (ITAT Pune) Succinctly, the factual panorama of the case is that the assessee transferred certain agricultural lands and claimed exemption u/s 54B of the Act amounting to Rs.18 lakhs. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted that she purchased new agricultural land in the name of her sons, […]
Beena Shammi Chaudhari Vs ITO (ITAT Pune) `A registered document shall operate from the time from which it would have commenced to operate if no registration thereof had been required or made, and not from the time of its registration‟. A document is first executed and then submitted for registration, if required. Normally, it takes […]
Late Shri Saifulla Abubakar Inamdar Legal Heir Vs ITO (ITAT Pune) Firstly, it is relevant to mention that the assessee did not take up the issue of Inami land before the AO. It was for the first time that the assessee raised this issue before the ld. CIT(A) contending that in the absence of any […]
Bhagyalaxmi Nagri Sahakari Patsanstha Meryadit Vs ITO (ITAT Pune) The first item is the commission income from MSEDCL amounting to Rs.60,363/-. The assessee has contended in its written submissions that similar issue came up for consideration before the Pune Tribunal in Banganga Nagri Sah. Patsanstha Ltd. (ITA No.873/PUN/2014) and the Tribunal, vide its order dated […]
CIT(A) did disposed of the case, ex parte of assessee. Under section 250 (6) of Income Tax, CIT(A) is expected to decide the appeal with reasons determining the points thereon.
DCIT Vs Clarion Technologies Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Pune) ITAT held that stand of the Revenue that assessee cannot be allowed the benefits of section 10A of the Act merely because the prescribed Audit Report in Form No.56F was not filed in the return of income, is quite erroneous. ITAT note that the AO passed order […]
DCIT Vs Shalaka Infra Tech (India) Pvt Ltd (ITAT Pune) Whether the CIT(A) is justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs.1,68,87,175/- as against Rs.1,88,63,786/- made by the AO on account of labour expenses in the facts and circumstances of the case. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that […]
