In Ajay Kumar v. ITO, the division bench of the Allahabad High Court held that exemption under section 54F of the Income Tax Act will not be available when the assessee has not started construction in the purchased plot within the stipulated time.
High Court held that that the disallowance of Rs. 70 lakhs paid by the assessee respondent as a condition pursuant to the order of this Court dated 01.02.2007 was liable as an expense as same was appropriated by the Customs authorities and it was covered by Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The petitioner’s contention is that the petitioner had detected the defects noticed by the Assessing Officer when audit was conducted of the accounts of the petitioner. It was in that context that the petitioner sent an e-mail, as per Ext.P4, for revision of return, which is said to be dated 29.08.2013. Admittedly, the petitioner did not pursue the application for revision and waited till three years, when a proposal for re-opening was issued under Section 25(1) of the Act dated 27.10.2016. A reply was filed at Ext.P3, in which a contention was taken with respect to the e-mail sent on 29.08.2013.
ITAT have consistently held that the internet charges have to be excluded both from the export turnover as well as from the total turnover while computing deduction u/s 10A of the Act.
ITAT Delhi held that any receipt directly and intimately linked with the procurement of capital asset is in the nature of capital receipt and not a revenue receipt. So such brokerage cannot be taxed in the hand of property buyer.
Delhi HC remanded the matter to AO to verify that claim towards the payment of Rs.3,19,66,460/- does not include any income component and if it constitutes reimbursement, the question of application of Section 40(a)(ia) would not arise.
Assessing Officer had treated the claim of long term capital gain as business income. The assessee did not object to that. In such situation there could be no application of Section 14A for disallowance of expenditure incurred to earn exempt income.
The assessee, a civil contractor, filed his return of income for A.Y. 2010-11 on 25.09.2010 declaring income of Rs. 30,65,277/-. The case was taken up for scrutiny and the assessment completed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) vide order dated 14.03.2013 wherein the income of the assessee was determined at Rs. 25,11,68,150/- in view of the following additions/disallowances
In the present facts there is nothing on record in the form of the Advocates letter, etc. to indicate that the petitioner acted upon his legal advise and the same was wrong. Therefore, whether the petitioner acted on advise of his Advocate or not is itself a subject matter of debate. Thus taking the application outside the scope of Section 254(2) of the Act.
Mere fact that at one point of time, the officer was working with the Commercial Taxes Department, cannot be a reasonable suspicion to disqualify him for appointment.
