Gyan Chand Agarwal Vs Addl. CIT (ITAT Jaipur) The issue in this ground is whether the sale consideration of the land belonging to Shri Sultan Meena can be taxed in the hands of the assessee, who is admittedly Power of Attorney holder of Shri Sultan Meena. There is no dispute with regard to the fact […]
Unfortunately undervaluing of immovable properties so as to either pay less stamp duty or for other reasons of concealment of income etc, is ripe in this country, however, the appellant/plaintiff cannot take any benefit of the same in view of the provision of Section 25 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and which specifies that inadequacy of consideration is not a ground for cancelling of a contract. In any case, it is very much possible that the declared consideration need not have been the actual consideration, and which of course this Court does not deal with or is not concerned with in view of the categorical provision of Explanation II to Section 25 of the Indian Contract Act.
Section 221 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, prescribes penalty according to its provisions when an assessee is in default or is deemed to be in default in making a payment of tax.
The Supreme Court directed the central government to initiate process to fill up vacancies in the income Tax Appellate Tribunals within three weeks.
he public authorities working under the aegis of Union Government shall make public: (a). Year wise Numeric data of pending as well as disposed Departmental / Vigilance / Court cases against their employees initiated at instance of the employer;(b). Rank/Post held by the charge sheeted employee; without disclosure of identity of the individual.(c). Details of outcome in terms of finding ie. exoneration or found guilty.
There are two appeals under consideration pertaining to two different assessees for the AY 2005-06. Since, the issues raised in these appeals are identical, therefore, for the sake of convenience, both these appeals are clubbed, heard combinedly and disposed of in this consolidated order.
As assessee was not the owner of toll road, but had been given the right to develop, maintain and operate the toll road and to further collect the toll for the specified period, then this right was an intangible asset falling under section 32(1)(ii) and expenditure on development, construction and maintenance of infrastructure facility as incurred by the assessee was not revenue in nature and therefore, could be amortized.
Supraja’s Sandy Lane Bar & Restaurant Vs. ACIT (ITAT Visakhapatnam) As per 153C of Income Tax Act for invoking jurisdiction, there must be incriminating material found and seized during the course of search in form of money, bullion, jewellery or the evidences indicating the inflation of e expenditure or undisclosed investments or suppression of Income.etc. […]
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and derives his income from salary and other sources. The assessee claiming himself as non-resident filed his return declaring total income at Rs. Nil. Under scrutiny, notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued.
1. It is amply clear that in the case in hand the ACIT observed that the mechanical approval had to be accorded as there is hardly any time left for any discussion or consideration much less meaningful discussion including the fact that absolutely no time available for any further inquiry or investigation because of the […]
