1. Shri Renukadevi Urban Credit Co-Op Society Ltd vs CIT (HC)
Dated: 1st April 2011
Whether the deductions u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) is available for investments made in private limited companies or public limited companies ? Held, Yes “Interest earned on the deposits made by the assessee in any banking activity is exempted u/s 80P of the Income Tax Act.”
2. Palam Jain Educational & Welfare Society Vs DGIT (HC)
Dated: 15th July 2011
S. 10(23C)(vi) – Whether when the assessee is already granted exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi), the fresh application of exemption cannot be rejected in view of third proviso to section 10(23C)(vi) as the exemption can be withdrawn only in the event that conditions under which the exemption is granted are not fulfilled and not before that.
3. DCIT vs Smt. Nirmal Rani (ITAT)
Dated: 15th July 2011
Merely addition on the basis of the DVO’s report which is based on the district circle rate and not on the basis of any scientific method prescribed for determining the fair market value of the property purchased cannot be relied upon to determine the fair market value of the land.
The negative factor in respect of plots purchased by the assessee as against the other plots falling within the same area should have been taken into account before applying district circle rates to arrive at the fair market value of the property.
Also Read: The Hon’ble High court held in the case of Naresh Khattar that “to invoke the provisions of sec. 69B of the Act, the burden is on the revenue to prove that the real investment exceeds the investment shown in the books of account of the assessee.”
4. Shri Om Prakash Tandon vs DCIT (ITAT)
Dated: 15th July 2011
Where assessee does not make any conscious attempt to conceal income and the mistake which was immediately corrected on being pointed out the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was not imposable.
The Assessee came to know that income by way of capital gains from deemed redemption of units of mutual fund had been omitted to be offered for taxation, on the basis of AIR in the case of his son. The assessee has come forward to disclose the income of Rs.8,89,457/- which was omitted, by way of a letter during the course of assessment proceedings, since the time of 12 months for filing the revised return had also expired. AO had come to know only from the details filed during the course of assessment proceedings and no notice pointing out non-admission of capital gains has been issued to the assessee. Therefore, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not imposable.
No comments:
Post a Comment