-
On 26th Oct, 2018 INDORE TRIBUNAL held that if the assessee has already purchased a new house within the stipulated period and as such is entitled to the deduction u/s.54F even though the assessee failed to deposit entire sale consideration scheme of deposits in capital gains account on or before due date of filing its return of income.
-
On 26th Oct 2018 AHMEDABAD TRIBUNAL held that Action u/s 263 can be justified only when twin condition is fulfilled as held by The Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shri D.G. Gopala Gowda i.e. assessment order should be erroneous and it should cause a prejudice to the Revenue. In the instant case Assessee argued the moment addition on account of disallowance of the deprecation would be made to the assessee’s income, it will be allowed as deduction u/s80IA/80IC. Therefore, order of the Commissioner is not sustainable on this issue.
-
Addition u/s 68 cannot be made where the assessee explains the source of the capital contribution, established the identity of the creditor and also credit worthiness of the parties.
-
On July 30, 2018 The High Court of Bombay held that no addition can be made in the hand of Company for share capital if the shareholders is having PAN And gave affidavit
-
On Jul 16, 2018 it has been held by JAIPUR TRIBUNAL that denial of the claim on the basis of suspicion without any cogent material to show that the assessee has brought back his own unaccounted income in the shape of long term capital gain, the said action of the AO is not sustainable
-
Rule 17A shows that the only requirement to seek registration under section 12A is to furnish documents evidencing creation of trust or establishment of institute in original
-
Friends, it has been held that Once Settlement Commission has completed proceedings, its order has to be considered conclusive as regards matters “stated therein” per Section 245I and reopening any proceeding in respect of matters covered in order would be barred. Any reassessment proceedings sought to be excluded from purview of “case” must be in respect of Section 148 notice sent while proceedings before Settlement Commission are ongoing. Once Settlement Commission had completed proceedings, its order had to be considered conclusive as regards matters “stated therein” per Section 245I and reopening any proceeding in respect of matters covered in order would be barred. Therefore, impugned notice issued to assessee u/s. 153C could not be sustained. Hence, impugned notice and all further proceedings quashed. It was open to the respondent/Revenue to move the Settlement Commission for appropriate relief of declaration that its previous order under Section 245D (6) is void, setting out the relevant facts and circumstances. Assessee’s petition allowed