An order cannot be revised by the equally situated or equally ranked authority or by any authority who is not authorised under the law. In the instant case the authorised authority is none else but the Commissioner of Income Tax or Principal Commissioner of Income Tax.
Even if a subsidy is given to attract industrial investment or expansion, which is a otherwise a capital receipt under the pre- amendment era, shall be treated as income chargeable to tax, except where it has been taken into account for determining the actual cost of assets in terms of Explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act.
It was held that exemption under Section 54 only requires that the property should be of residential nature and the fact that the residential house consists of several independent units cannot be an impediment to grant relief under Section 54 even if such independent units were on different floors.
Sri Lal A. Khemani Vs. ITO (ITAT Hyderabad) There is no dispute that assessee had purchased shares through stock exchange as evidenced by the broker’s note and also sold through stock exchange by way of another broker’s note. Both of which contain the transaction details, time of transaction along with STT paid. There is no […]
The petitioner – a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 – has filed the present petition impugning communications dated 01.08.2014 and 07.12.2015 (hereafter referred to as the impugned communications)
When assessee himself had adopted value of land as per Stamp Duty Authority for computation of long-term capital gain, then he could not claim adoption of the value of land as estimated by DVO, as he filed return of income and paid taxes, also there was no scope of reduction.
Pramod Kumar Sapra Vs. Income Tax Officer (ITAT Delhi) Observation that since the salary income has been received in India, i.e., it has been credited in the bank account of the assessee in India and also TDS has been deducted by the employer, this fact cannot be a determinative of the taxability of resident or […]
Smt. Maniza Jumabhoy Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax (ITAT Hyderabad) Assessee has entered into is not a ‘sale deed’ as considered by the AO and CIT(A) but only an ‘agreement of sale cum Irrevocable General Power of Attorney’ for a property, which the Hon’ble Court has held that these three parties have no ownership […]
When the transaction of purchase of shares are held to be outside the purview of the provisions of Sec.92 of the Act, we fail to understand as to how the excess price paid for acquiring shares can be treated as a deemed loan and an international transaction. We therefore find no merits in the argument advanced by the learned DR.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Kolkata bench recently pronounced that Assessing Officer cannot pass an ex parte order without mentioning any reason for confirming the addition on merits under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
