Notice under section 143(2) was issued prior to the filing of the return of income which was invalid and the assessment order passed would also be invalid.
Ess Infraproject Private Limited Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) The issue of the saving of Rule 5A(2) of Service Tax Rules, 1992 on introduction of CGST Act, 2017 is an issue that requires detailed consideration. This would be appropriately done at the final hearing. Thus, granting of interim relief at this stage would […]
When assessee itself had filed separate TDS statements in respect of the tax deducted at source relating to the respective flats, while processing such statements under section 200A, AO had to levy fee under section 234E taking into account the delay in filing each of the statements and the levy of fee prescribed under section 234E could not be restricted to one challan–cum–statement filed in Form no.26QB.
Assessee was entitled to exemption under section 54 even if he had not taken possession nor the purchase deed had been executed within the period of three years because the delay in obtaining possession and getting purchase deed executed was on account of the developer and was by reason beyond the control of assessee.
Addition under section 69B of unaccounted money invested in purchase of land by assessee by paying in cash to sellers of land was justified as assessee-purchaser had no evidence to controvert the same.
Mrs. A. Vijayakumari Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) The provisions of section 54 of the Act are beneficial and are to be considered liberally for reasonable bonafide cause but investment in residential property is mandatory which is not in dispute in this case. The Assessing Officer was not justified in rejecting the case law relied on […]
Penalty under section 271AAB was justified as the surrender had been made on account of discrepancy /shortage in stock which had not been accounted for by assessee and the same was therefore rightly been held to qualify as “ undisclosed income” as per the definition in section 271AAB.
ITAT held that CIT(A) rightly directed Assessing Officer to allow the assessee’s claim of depreciation @ 25% treating the toll way rights as an intangible asset under section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
CIT(A) erred in dismissing assessee’s appeal and passing a non-speaking order on each of the points which arose for his consideration, therefore, CIT(A) was directed to pass denovo order as per law, in accordance with Sections 250 and 251 for fresh disposal of appeal filed by assessee.
Where allotment as well as execution of the agreement did not vest two different capital assets in the hands of the assessee which got exchanged with each other upon execution of the agreement rather the event of allotment as well as execution of agreement was part & parcel of the same transaction and only an improvement in ownership rights held by assessee in the flat, therefore, period of holding had to be taken from the date of allotment and the resultant gains earned by assessee would be LTCG only.
