-
Assessee entitled to claim exemption under Section 54(1) of the Act in respect of two separate residential houses acquired out of the capital gains.
Commissioner of Income-tax vs Khoobchand M. Makhija
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2679 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Income Tax Section 54
-
Section 12AA can be granted to the trust with both charitable and religious objects. No distinction between the Trusts created with the object of charitable and religious purposes and, even if the Trust is not created with both the objects, law does not make any disqualification for the trust to make an application for registration. Trust registration cannot be rejected on the ground that its activity are not commenced.
Director of Income Tax Exemptions vs Seervi Samaj Tambaram Trust
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2678 (HC-MADRAS) · Income Tax Section 12AA, 11(1)(a)
-
S. 80IA(5) - Deduction is to be calculated when the claim for deduction is made.
CIT vs Shri Anil H Lad
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2677 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Income Tax Section 80IA(5)
-
Expiry of limitation period – Beyond 47 days - There is no requirement that service must be effected before the expiry date but there must be evidences to show that assessment order was indeed passed before the limitation
Shri Subrata Roy vs ITO
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2676 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
-
Amount paid from the company bank account on behalf of Director Mrs. Ayashath Habeeba, (assessee wife) out of credit balance lying with the company cannot be treated as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e).
ACIT vs Shri PSM Ahmed Abdul Kadir
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2675 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · Income Tax Section 2(22)(e)
-
Section 68 - The assessee has established the correlation between the entries of withdrawals and that of deposits. Merely because the number of transactions was more, that itself is not sufficient to hold that the same has arisen out of the undisclosed income of the assessee especially when the assessee has explained the reasons and requirements of making such transactions further corroborated with books of accounts, bank statements and other relevant documents. The ld. CIT(A) has thoroughly examined and discussed the facts and circumstances of the case and has passed a well reasoned order deleting the additions made by the AO u/s 68 of the Act.
ITO vs Shri Gaurawdeep S. Batra
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2674 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Income Tax Section 68
-
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)
-
Expenditure on foreign education of employee (son of director) is deductible if there is business nexus
KOSTUB INVESTMENT LTD vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2672 (HC-DELHI) · Income Tax Section 37
-
S. 147: Even s. 143(1) Intimation cannot be reopened in the absence of new information
MOHAN GUPTA (HUF) vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XI AND ANR
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2671 (HC-DELHI) · Income Tax Section 147, 143(1)
-
Whether exemption u/s 54EC can be availed by a Trust even if investments are made in the name of trustees or beneficiaries
Popatlal N Vora Inheritance Trust vs ITO
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2670 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Income TAx Section 54EC
-
The assessee has consumed the base land FSI in the projects already completed by it and the balance portion of the project shall be completed on the basis of TDR purchased by it. However this explanation, defies the logic and also accounting principles. When the assessee is computing income on the completed projects, it is not known as to how it could claim land cost pertaining to unfinished projects against those completed projects. When it was pointed out to the assessee that its claim is not correct, the assessee has accepted for the addition of a part of land cost proportionate to uncompleted project. Thus, it is seen that the assessee has made an inaccurate or erroneous claim of land cost in its return of income, which has resulted in furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Further, the assessee has offered an explanation with regard to this claim, but has failed to substantiate it by bringing any material on record. Further the assessee has failed to prove that the said explanation was bona find one. It is also not the case of the assessee that the said claim was in accordance with the accounting practice regularly followed by it or in the trade circles. Hence, the assessee has failed to discharge the burden placed upon him under Explanation 1 to sec. 271 of the Act, in which case, the assessee shall be deemed to have concealed particulars of income in respect of this addition. Since this claim is an incorrect claim on facts, the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt Ltd (supra) shall not apply. It noticed that the Ld CIT(A) has deleted the penalty by placing reliance on the said decision. Appeal allowed.
ACIT vs Shree Swastik Developers
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2669 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Explanation 1 to sec. 271
-
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
-
Share trading business on own behalf is "jobbing" - Jobbing is not speculative in view of proviso (c) to section 43(5).
Commissioner Income Tax vs Sri Ram Kishan Gupta
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2667 (HC-ALLAHABAD) · Proviso (c) to section 43(5).
-
The circular issued by the department cannot amend the statutory provision and therefore Rule 68B
ITO vs K MAHIN KALLATRA
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2666 (HC-KERALA)
-
For the purpose of claiming 54F, Commercial property cannot be treated as a residential property for the reason that rental income from it is shown as “Income from House Property”
Mr I Ifthiqar Ashiq vs Income Tax Officer
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2665 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · Income Tax Section 54F
-
Section 53A of TPA, 2(47)(v) r.w.s 45 of IT ACT, 1961- Capital gains is to be computed at the time when the transfer takes place
CIT vs COCHIN STOCK EXCHANGES LIMITED
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2664 (HC-KERALA) · Section 53A of TPA, 2(47)(v) r.w.s 45 of IT ACT, 1961
-
Exemption u/s 54F allowable if construction had commenced before the sale of the shares
CIT vs BHARTI MISHRA
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2663 (HC-DELHI) · Income Tax Section 54F
-
Section 40(a)(ia) applies only to those amount which remains payable by the end of the previous year, in respect of payments already made section 40(a)(ia) is not attracted.
Vivil Exports P. Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2662 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Income Tax Section 40(a)(ia)
-
HC quash the majority view of the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) granting immunity to the assessee from penalty and prosecution
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2661 (HC-DELHI)
-
The explanation to sub-section (2A) of Section 10 does not require any striking down as sought by the petitioner. That section has been interpreted in this order having regard to the object of the amendment and the principles of Partnership Law.
VIDYA INVESTMENT AND TRADING COMPANY PVT LTD vs UOI & Ars
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2660 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Income Tax Section 10(2A), sub-sections (34), (35) and (38) of Section 10
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.