A two-judge bench of the Bombay High Court, in The Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad v. M/s. C. N. Builders & Developers held that the deduction under section 80-IB is available to the assessee- Builder, even if the construction is not according to the plan approved by the authorities.
The Ld.CWT(A) should have struck off the irrelevant column and made known the assessee by mentioning for which reason the penalty was initiated. Penalty u/s 18(1)(c) of WT Act are parimateria to Income Tax Act 271(1)(c). As per settled case laws non striking the irrelevant column in the notice issued u/s 18(1)(c) renders the notice invalid and consequent penalty required to be cancelled.
Pendurthi Chandrasekhar Vs DCIT (Andhra Pradesh HC) Conclusion: AO was not justified in adding the amount of Rs. 73,00,000 to the account of assessee received from maternal aunt as the donor herself had given a confirmation letter clearly stating therein that she had transferred the amount and further declaring that she gave the said gift […]
Joint Commissioner has failed to grant approval in terms of section 153D of the Act i.e., after application of mind but has rather carried out exercise in utmost haste and in a mechanical manner and, therefore, the approval so granted by him is not an approval which can be sustained.
Ramswaroop Saudagar Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur) Although the land was agricultural land and situated in the limits of city of Dausa. It was developed into 23 plots of various sizes and sold during the year. The nature of land had gone irreversible change from agricultural to residential plots, therefore, we are agree with the finding […]
FCCB is akin to borrowings made by issuing debentures and both of them are different types of debt instruments only. Accordingly it was held in the case of Prime Focus Ltd. (supra), that the expenses incurred in connection with FCCB are revenue in nature.
The issue in hand pertains to addition made on account of deemed dividend as per provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. Being a deeming provision, bringing to tax sums which are not actually in the nature of income but are only deemed to be so, it is to be strictly interpreted. Section 2(22)(e) of […]
Gyanchand M. Bardia Vs. ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) The first dispute between the parties is qua validity of assessee’s gift claim as received from the HUF amounting to Rs. 1,02,00,000/- coming through banking channel. Both the lower authorities are of the view that an HUF does not come under the specified category of a relative in […]
Asst. Vs Sai Bhaskar Irons Ltd. Once addition under section 68 was included in gross total income, AO had to allow set off of unabsorbed depreciation loss as provided under section 71 dealing with the set off of loss from one head against income from another head. FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGMENT This appeal […]
Whether the CESTAT was right in holding that the assessee was not providing Management, Maintenance or Repair Service by collecting amount from prospective flat buyers, for maintaining the building, in the guise of deposits which is not returnable? Whether the CESTAT has erred in holding that assessee is providing statutory service and has rendered definition provided under Section 65(105)(zzg) of Finance Act as null and void by accepting that he is not providing Management, Maintenance or repair service by maintaining the building and collecting amount for that or not?
