-
Proceedings u/s. 153A of the Act always precede the proceedings u/s.153C of the Act and without recording satisfaction note by the AO initiating proceedings for completion of assessment u/s. 153A of the Act cannot be proceeded u/s. 153C of the Act in the case of such other person not searched.
Shettys Pharmaceuticals & Biologicals Ltd vd DCIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3323 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
-
Assessee was eligible for the benefit of deduction u/s 54F, though the assessee has not purchased the new residential house in the assessee’s own name
ACIT vs Sri S. Ramesh Goud
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3320 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
-
Capital gains not taxable on the basis of mere signing of development agreement
Binjusaria Properties (P.) Ltd. Vs. ACIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3311 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
-
Residential unit of 8ft x 8 ft dimensions cannot be treated as Building – Section 54
Shri R.Satish Kumar Reddy Vs. ACIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3297 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
-
Exemption u/s 11 - Besides fulfilling other prerequisites for exemption u/s. 11, as stipulated in sections 11 to 13 of the Act the appellant did not charge any money, by whatever name it is called, i.e. donation, building fund, auditorium fee etc., over and above the prescribed fee for the admission of the, student, the appellant would be entitled for exemption u/s. 11, even if the, notification u/s. 10(23C) of the Act has not been obtained by it.
Asst. Director of Income Tax (Exemption) vs. Farah Educational Society
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3236 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
-
Mere subsequent Commercial use of Residential Property not take away benefit u/s.54F
Shri M.V.Subramanyeswara Reddy (HUF) & Others Versus DCIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3203 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · S.54F
-
Mere non residential use subsequently would not render property ineligible for benefit U/s. 54F
Shyamlal Tandon Vs. ITO
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3202 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · S. 54F
-
Sec. 54 Expression ‘a residential house’ cannot be interpreted as ‘a single residential unit’
Vittal Krishna Conjeevaram Vs. Income Tax Officer
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2738 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
-
S. 250(4), and provisions of rule 46A - Mere fact that the results of the enquiries thus conducted supported the case of the assessee and not that of Revenue has no bearing on the jurisdiction and powers of the learned CIT(A).
DCIT vs NE Technologies India Pvt. Ltd
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2723 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · Income Tax Section 250(4), Rule 46A
-
STCG or LTCG - Handing over possession after receiving full consideration is the definitive declaration of transfer of property as per the definition u/s 2(47), registration is only a process. The assessee is rightfully claiming exemption u/s 54F.
Vrajendra Karan Varma Rathod vs ITO
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2722 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · Income Tax Section 2(47), 54F
-
Mistake in 26AS issued by the contractor, assessee cannot be default . S. 40(a)(ia) is retrospective in nature since it has been introduced to eliminate unintended consequences which may cause undue hardship to the tax payer.
The Asst. CIT vs PLR Projects Pvt. Ltd
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2721 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · Income Tax Section 40(a)(ia)
-
Merely because the copy of the registration u/s 12A is not available with the assessee and the revenue department is not able to trace the file, the copy of the registration, it cannot be said that the assessee is not eligible for recognition u/s 80G of the Act.
The Andhra Pradesh Federation of Chambers Of Commerce and Trade vs DIT(E)
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2702 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · Income Tax Section 12A, 80G
-
Unregistered agreement of sale
Sri Sitendranarayan Mahendra Narayan Rai vs ITO
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2690 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · Section 143(1), 147, 2(47)(v), 53A of TPA
-
Non deduction of tax - Payment cannot be considered as payment towards work executed by GAIL and HPCL in the course of work contract. Reimbursement of salary to the deputed personnel would not attract deduction of tax at source.
Deputy CIT vs. Bhagyanagar Gas Ltd
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2688 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
-
JDA - No possession handed over to the developer and also kept the possession with the assessee himself and only for the limited purpose of carrying on construction in the scheduled property by the developer, permission was given to the developer to enter the property. It cannot be said that absolute possession of the property was given to the developer, in other words, only symbolic possession has been given to the developer. Further, the assessee has not received any consideration whatsoever vide the Joint Development Agreement. Being so, it cannot be said that there is a transfer in terms of section 2(47)(v) of the Act.
Sri ABVS Prakash vs The Asst. CIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2673 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · Income Tax Section 2(47)(v)
-
The unsubstantiated loose sheets cannot be considered as a conclusive evidence to make any addition towards undisclosed income. Guess work is not possible in case of search assessment framed u/s. 143(3) or u/s. 153A of the Act.
The Deputy CIT vs Sri K Babu Rao
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2668 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · Income Tax Section 143(3) or u/s. 153A
-
Amendment made to provisions of section 2(ea) by Finance Act, 2013 with retrospective effect from 1-4-1993 - Where CWT(A) had no occasion to examine impact of amendment to section 2(ea) with retrospective effect which was claimed to have kept land in question out of purview of wealth tax, matter was to be remanded
Smt K Swarnalatha vs Deputy Commissioner of Wealth-tax
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2659 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · Income Tax Section 2(ea)
-
Method of accounting - AO simply by rejecting the method of accounting followed by the assessee is not proper since assessments have been completed in other assessment years cases based on the same accounting method. The assessment was not based on the seized material but, it is based only on wrong accounting standards followed by the assessee-company in recognising the revenue and hence, the only issue is to be adjudicated upon in this appeal is whether the AO is right in rejecting the accounting method regularly employed by the assessee and substituting the same with accounting method as per AS-7 and computation of profit based on the same. The assessing officer has taken estimated revenue from the projects without considering the fact that whether the units are sold or not. In other words, profit is being estimated on unsold stock also. As per revised AS-7 2002, does not apply to the builders and real estate developers. The method followed by the assessee company cannot be called as an unreasonable method and any change in the method would only be tax neutral.
Asst. CIT Vs. Universal Realtors Pvt. Ltd
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2585 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
-
No ‘transfer’ when a partner received his share in the partnership business. Payment received was towards transfer of goodwill.
ACIT vs Sri N Prasad
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2561 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · Income Tax Section 2(47)
-
Unsubstantiated material found in the pendrive cannot be considered in the hands of the assessee as a conclusive evidence so as to make additions towards unexplained credit.
Sahitya Housing Pvt. Ltd vs DCIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2560 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.