Income Tax : PGBP governs the computation of business and professional income. It defines chargeable income (Sec. 28, 41) including statutory a...
Income Tax : Section 50C: For property sales, if the sale price is lower than the value assessed by Stamp Valuation Authority, that value is co...
Income Tax : Learn about tax implications for sellers and buyers of immovable property. Understand capital gains, stamp duty, tax withholding, ...
Income Tax : Understand how Sec 50C & 43CA of Income Tax Act affect taxation of immovable property sales. Learn about capital gains, business i...
Income Tax : Understanding double taxation on the sale of unquoted shares in India. Learn about the implications and requirements under the Inc...
Income Tax : Representation for widening the scope of benefit in case of difference in agreement price and Circle Rate of property is upto 20 p...
Income Tax : Bombay Chartered Accountants' Society has made a Representation on 'Suggestions for Amendments in the Income Tax Act', on 24th May...
Income Tax : Mumbai ITAT held that no addition under Section 43CA could survive where difference between agreement value and DVO valuation rema...
Income Tax : The Tribunal upheld tax addition where agricultural land was acquired below stamp duty valuation and DVO-determined fair market va...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that CIT(A) cannot enhance income by introducing a new issue not examined by the Assessing Officer. The ruling cl...
Income Tax : The case examined whether minor valuation differences can trigger taxation under Section 56(2)(x). ITAT held that differences with...
Income Tax : ITAT Pune held that reopening of assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act based on audit objection is merely change of o...
Income Tax : In order to boost demand in the real-estate sector and to enable the real-estate developers to liquidate their unsold inventory at...
Income Tax : Notification No. 8/2020-Income-Tax- CBDT has notified Other electronic modes by inserting New Income TAx Rule 6ABBA. It also amend...
Mumbai ITAT held that no addition under Section 43CA could survive where difference between agreement value and DVO valuation remained within 10% tolerance band. Tribunal ruled that safe harbour benefit applies once DVO valuation substitutes stamp duty value.
The Tribunal upheld tax addition where agricultural land was acquired below stamp duty valuation and DVO-determined fair market value. It ruled that agricultural status of land does not exclude applicability of section 56(2)(x).
ITAT Mumbai held that CIT(A) cannot enhance income by introducing a new issue not examined by the Assessing Officer. The ruling clarifies that such action exceeds jurisdiction under Section 251 and must be addressed through other provisions.
The case examined whether minor valuation differences can trigger taxation under Section 56(2)(x). ITAT held that differences within 10% fall within permissible tolerance. The ruling protects genuine transactions from arbitrary additions.
ITAT Pune held that reopening of assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act based on audit objection is merely change of opinion and the same is impermissible in law. Accordingly, notice issued u/s. 148 is not valid and is liable to be quashed.
ITAT held that vacant unsold flats attract tax on notional rent under house property. The key takeaway is that ownership triggers taxation even without actual rental income.
The tribunal set aside excessive addition by recognizing both the allotment agreement and joint ownership. It directed proportionate taxation and correct valuation basis. The ruling promotes fairness in assessments.
Tribunal held that once income is computed under section 44AD using stamp duty value as turnover, a separate addition under section 43CA leads to double taxation and is not permissible.
The Tribunal held that cash payments for land purchase cannot be disallowed under Section 40A(3) if not claimed as expenditure. Since the amount was capital in nature, the addition was deleted. The ruling clarifies the scope of disallowance provisions.
The tribunal held that the safe harbour limit applies to valuation determined by the DVO, not just stamp duty value. It ruled in favour of the assessee as the variation was within 10%.
