ITAT Mumbai held that the cost of acquisition of flat shall include the cost of amenities even when the agreement requiring the flat purchaser to pay such cost is not registered and no stamp duty paid on amenities cost.
During Income tax proceedings, often statement of a person is used to catch hold of prospective tax evading assessees. But, it is trite that the statement of such a person cannot be allowed to be used against the assessee without even providing an opportunity of cross examining such person.
The fall in gross profit ratio could be for various reasons such as increase in the cost of raw material, decrease in the market price of finished product, increase in the cost of processing by the assessee etc.
Assessee submitted that project receipt from Tanakpur Power Project of NHPC work is exempt from tax in India for the reason that assessee does not have continuous presence or ‘business connection’ or a permanent establishment in India.
The business of the company was to lease its property and to earn rent and therefore, the income so earned should be treated as its business income. The High court was not correct while deciding that the income of the appellant should be treated as Income from House Property.
Claiming Of Deduction Under Section 54F Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 When Property Builder Could Not Complete The Flat While Assessee Fulfilled Condition Under Above-Mentioned Section.
Since the mistake of quoting wrong PAN has been rectified in the revised TDS return filed by the assessee which has been accepted by the department, therefore, there is no justification in raising a demand on account of short deduction of TDS.
The only issue that is to be decided is whether the date of allotment of the flat or the date of possession of the flat by the assessee should be considered as the date for computing the holding period of 36 months.
Bombay HC in the above cited case held that when the assessee’s volume of purchasing and selling shares is quite high with higher frequency of buying and selling with holding 75 days or less then its prima facie indicate that it is engaged in trading of shares unless assessee provide a sound reasoning that why transactions should not be considered as trading activity.
The respondent admitted that the firm J.S.Bedi & Co. was charged with the concurrent audit for the period in question and that it had carried out the concurrent audit under his supervision but denied any fraud perpetrated for the period of the audit. But surprisingly it was also simultaneously pleaded that the purported frauds began in July, 2002 and continued till April, 2005 and went undetected
