Smt. B. Radha & Ors. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad) The impugned issue to be considered is whether the reopening of assessment on the basis of so-called statement of Shri Ramalinga Raju (Satyam Computers) is warranted. As seen from the additions made, there is no live-link with the reasons recorded and the additions made. In fact, […]
In this case assessee sold a property at Rs.20 lakhs against circle rate of 89 lakhs and spent more than a crore in construction of new residential property, exemption u/s 54F was claimed but the AO allowed exemption only with reference to 20 lakhs and balance amount was assessed as capital gain.
Invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has filed the instant writ petition seeking quashment of charge-sheet filed against him by jurisdictional police in the criminal court alleging the commission of offence under Section 21 (2) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter called as “P0SCO Act”).
Hon’ble SC held that Making a claim which would prima facie disclose that the expenses in respect of which deduction has been claimed has been incurred and thereafter abandoning/withdrawing the same gives rise to the necessity of further enquiry in the interest of the Revenue.
It is held that deduction u/s 80P is allowable to a primary agricultural credit society. In the instant case , assessee being a registered society classified in bye-laws as primary agricultural credit society is entitled to claim exemption u/s 80P.
Non consideration of proposition laid down by Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Holcim India (P) Ltd., reported as (2014) 90 CCH 0081 (Delhi H.C.) is an apparent mistake in the order of the Tribunal.
HC held that while disposing off an application for registration u/s 12AA , the CIT is required only to verify the geniuses of the trust’s activity so as to ensure that the same matches with the objects stated in the trust deed.
It is not in dispute that the period during which interim stay of the order passed by the court is in operation has to be excluded while computing the period of two years as limitation period prescribed for completing the block assessment.
Where assessee was earning booking charges for facilitating transport of goods and was merely a conduit in passing the freight to the truck owners, who were actually plying trucks, disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was not justified because freight payment was not even claimed by assessee as an expense in its profit and loss account.
it was held that in order to prove clandestine removal of excisable goods, the department should take reasonable steps and provide correlated corroborative evidence to prove that the assessee has made cladenstine removal of goods.
