2016 (4) TMI 559 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Swati Saurin Shah Versus Income Tax Officer - Ward – 5, (2) (4) Or His Successor
Reopening of assessment - petitioner had produced misguiding valuation report of the Registered Valuer which resulted in under-assessment of long term capital gain - Held that - On a perusal of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment, it is amply clear that the only reason for stating that the assessee had submitted an incorrect/misguiding valuation report is that the Assessing Officer in the case of the co-owner did not accept such report. In the case of the petitioner, the Assessing Officer while framing assessment under section 143(3) of the Act had, after considering the material ....... - .......
2016 (3) TMI 243 - ITAT MUMBAI
The Income Tax Officer 18 (2) (1) , Mumbai Versus Dr. Vasant J Rath Trust and Vica-Versa
Transfer of tenancy rights to long term capital gains - deduction under section. 54EC to the extent of investment of the capital gain - Held that - Taking into account the factual matrix and circumstances of the case on hand and the legal position on this issue espoused in section 2(14) and 2(47) of the Act and the ratio of the judicial pronouncements on the issue of grant of tenancy rights similar to the facts of the case on hand, inter-alia, laid down by the Hon ble Apex Court in Parbani Tea Company (1965 (4) TMI 19 - SUPREME Court ), and R.K.Palshikar (HUF) (1988 (5) TMI 3 - SUPREME Court ) ....... - .......
2016 (4) TMI 901 - ITAT MUMBAI
Sujaysingh P. Bobade (HUF) and Udaysingh P. Bobade (HUF). Versus I.T.O. 19 (1) (2) , Mumbai
Revision u/s 263 - CIT was of the view that nature of income arising from the transaction is not from Long term capital gain but Income from House Property and the AO has erroneously allowed the exemption u/s 54EC - Held that - The property constitute a bundle of rights and transfer by way of allotment of perpetual tenancy with right of occupancy and enjoyment of property perpetually in favour of tenant is also transfer of one of the right out of the bundle of rights which property carries with it and shall be chargeable to tax u/s 55(2)(a) read with Section 45 of the Act as Income from Capita ....... - .......
2016 (1) TMI 221 - ITAT CHENNAI
M/s. Treadsdirect Limited Versus The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-I, Coimbatore And Vica-Versa
Disallowance recoverable written off in the Profit and Loss Account - Held that - The assessee has been following the system of Accounting methodology which is accepted. Bad Debts occurred in the normal course of business and write off can be made after considering the recovery of Debtors becoming doubtful and the assessee has not squared off the debtors account. Under amended provisions of section 36(i)(vii) of the act effective from 1st April, 1989, in order to obtain a deduction in relation to bad debts, it is not necessary for the assessee to establish that the debt, in fact has become irr ....... - .......
2015 (12) TMI 1512 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Nitish Ishvarlal Champaneria Versus Income Tax Officer
Reopening of assessment - assessee sold his immovable property and had earned long term capital gain claiming deduction under section 54-EC on investment in Rural Electrification Corporation - Held that - The reasons recorded by the assessing officer do not even suggest that the income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment due to failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts. The revenue has not, even if possible to do so, demonstrated any such failure on the part of the assessee. In fact, counsel for the petitioner rightly pointed out that not only that ....... - .......
2015 (12) TMI 1502 - ITAT MUMBAI
Income Tax Officer -17 (2) (4) , Mumbai Versus Hasmukh J Shah and Mrs. Saryubala H Shah and Vica-Versa
Validity of reopening of the case u/s 147 - AO treating the amount received on sale of shares which was claimed as Long-term-capital-gain, as income from other sources along with the commission paid for obtaining the alleged fictitious LTCG 0.15 - Held that - From the analysis of the reasons recorded, it is evident that there is no specific information that the shares of N.E. Electronics Company purchased through M/s Goldstar Finvest Pvt Ltd. In April 2001 and sold through M/s Mahasagar Securities Pvt Ltd in June 2003 was a bogus transaction or was an accommodation entry. If the AO has receive ....... - .......
2015 (11) TMI 1367 - ITAT MUMBAI
Asst. CIT, Room No. 447, Mumbai Versus Pramod H. Lele
Taxability of the gain on the transfer of sweat equity shares allotted to the assessee - Revenue seeks to bring the entire gain to tax as short-term capital gain, the assessee concedes it to be income by way of capital gains, albeit long term in nature and, accordingly, exempt u/s.10(38) of the Act. The Revenue s alternate claims are of the income being assessable as speculation income u/s. 43(5) or even as income from other sources u/s. 56 - Held that - In essence and substance though the co-ordinate Bench in the assessee s own case for A.Y. 1998-999 express the same opinion, i.e., that the r ....... - .......
2016 (1) TMI 897 - ITAT MUMBAI
Mr. Nitul B Shah Versus ITO, Ward-19 (1) (1) , Mumbai
Denial of claim of deduction u/s 54EC - short term capital gain or long term - inclusion of period of holding of the previous owner - inherited property - Held that - It has been clarified by way of explanation, the expression previous owner of the property in relation to any capital asset owned by the assessee means the last previous owner of the capital asset, who acquired it by a mode of acquisition other than that referred to in clause (i) or clause (ii) or clause (iii) or clause (iv) of this sub-section. Thus, capital gain tax is to be computed by taking into consideration the provisions ....... - .......
2015 (11) TMI 491 - ITAT MUMBAI
Income Tax Officer, Ward–20 (2) (1) , Mumbai Versus Legal Heir of Shri Durgaprasad Agnihotri
Claim of the assessee made under section 54EC denied - short term capital gain u/s 50 of the Act on depreciable assets of shops - Held that - The capital asset sold by the assessee during the year is a shop, comprising of land (or rights therein) as well as building or the super-structure thereon, which are separate and distinct assets under the Act (refer CIT v. Alps Theatre 1967 (3) TMI 6 - SUPREME Court and CIT v. Citi Bank N.A. 2003 (4) TMI 92 - BOMBAY High Court . The super-structure being a depreciable asset, on which depreciation had been allowed, as noted by the ld. CIT(A) (refer para ....... - .......
2015 (9) TMI 1058 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Commissioner of Income Tax-18 Versus Shri Vinayak Digamber Kharote
Admission of additional evidence - non disclosure of sale of the joint family property in the return of income - whether the Tribunal was justified in making an allowance for any fresh claim of deduction without the claim being made in the return of income or without filing a revised return of income? - Held that - Failure to disclose the fact of receipt of capital gains on sale of joint family property in the return of income, was deliberate and malafide, also does not stand for scrutiny. This for the reason that the entire amount which would otherwise be chargeable to tax as long term capita ....... - .......
2015 (10) TMI 78 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Mannur Meghana Reddy Versus Dy. Director of Income-tax, (International Taxation) , Hyd.
Disallowance of deduction on account of cost of acquisition and cost of improvement while computing long term capital gain (LTCG) - exemption u/s 54EC - assessee is a non-resident individual - Held that - As can be seen from the terms of the deed of settlement, the property given by father of assessee to her was out of natural love and affection and without any monetary consideration. That being the case, it cannot be said that it is not a gift so as to come within the purview of section 49 of the Act. Though, the property might have been given to assessee under a document termed as deed of se ....... - .......
2015 (9) TMI 393 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Shri Kamlakar Moghe
Deduction u/s. 48(1) - ITAT allowed deduction - Held that - As after expiry of Shri P.M. Moghe on 20.03.1996, the assessee and his three daughters were faced in a peculiar position. They resolved the situation and a family settlement was reduced into writing. It was agreed that at the time of sale, each sister shall be given ₹ 15 lakh and each niece shall be given Rs. Five lakh. Accordingly, when the property was sold on 07.07.2006, this family settlement has been given effect to. It is, therefore, obvious that in the absence of such family settlement and payment, the sale of property on ....... - .......
2015 (12) TMI 618 - ITAT MUMBAI
Neela S. Karyakarte Versus ITO-23 (3) (1) , Mumbai
Eligibility for exemption u/s 54EC - whether the investment was made by the assessee within the six months from the transfer of the original asset as prescribed u/s 54EC - Held that - The assessee had filed an application with National Housing Bank on 23.12.2004 and submitted along with this application Cheque No.669766 drawn on bank of India, Mulund Branch Mumbai, dated 23.12.2004. This fact has not been disputed by the Ld. DR appearing on behalf of the revenue. Thus, assessee has clearly made the investment within the period of 180 days also. Thus, viewed from any angle it can be safely said ....... - .......
2015 (12) TMI 609 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
ACIT, Vapi Circle, Vapi Versus Mehul Prakash Shah, Innova Industries
Disallowance of deduction u/s 54EC - as per certificate issued by Rural Electrification Corporation Limited (RECL) the deposit was beyond the prescribed period - CIT(A) deleted the addition as the deposit was made by the assessee within the prescribed time and delay was on account of issue of bond by the RECL - Held that - We entirely agree with the order of the CIT(A). Admittedly, the assessee deposited the money in time with the REC Ltd. However, it was REC Ltd who took time to issue the certificate of the bond. The responsibility of the assessee is to make investment with REC Ltd within tim ....... - .......
2015 (7) TMI 645 - ITAT BANGALORE
The Income Tax Officer, Ward 3 (4) , Bangalore. Versus Shri T.N.N. Shetty (HUF)
Eligibility for exemption u/s. 54EC - CIT(A) allowed claim - according to AO the sale proceeds of the capital asset were not invested in REC/NHB Bonds and what was invested was only loan taken from the partnership firm, M/s. Tallam Textiles, the claim of exemption u/s. 54EC was not to be allowed - Held that - The evidence filed by the assessee before the CIT(A), in our view, clearly demonstrates that there was no loan taken by the assessee from M/s. Tallam Textiles. It was a case where assessee deposited the sale proceeds in his capital account (current account) and withdrew monies therefrom a ....... - .......