S.54F : Capital gains- Investment in a residential house -Purchased within two years from the date of transfer of original asset —Entitled to exemption [ S. 45 ]
Rajiv Madhok v. ACIT (2020)80 ITR 427 184 ITD 378 ( Delhi) (Trib)S.54F : Capital gains- Investment in a residential house -Purchased within two years from the date of transfer of original asset —Entitled to exemption [ S. 45 ]
Rajiv Madhok v. ACIT (2020)80 ITR 427 184 ITD 378 ( Delhi) (Trib)S.54F : Capital gains- Investment in a residential house – Failure to deposit unutilised portion of consideration in capital gains scheme — Procedural requirement — Benefit cannot be denied [ S.45 , 54(2)]
Kasi Viswanathan Ramanathan v. ITO (2020) 80 ITR 461 ( Chennai )(Trib)S. 54 : Capital gains – Profit on sale of property used for residence –
As on date of transfer of original asset – Not owning more than one residential house — Capital gains deposited in capital gains savings account — Completion of construction within two years from date of sale of original asset —Entitled to exemption[ S.45, 54F ]
S. 54 : Capital gains – Profit on sale of property used for residence -New property acquired in Son’s name —Exemption cannot be denied [ S.45 ]
Bhagwan Swaroop Pathak v. ITO (2020) 80 ITR 89( Delhi) (Trib)S. 50C : Capital gains – Full value of consideration – Stamp valuation – Assessable – With effect from 1-10-2009 prospective in nature- Deemed sale consideration of Rs. 1.56 crores could not be invoked. [ S.45 , 48 ]
Alka Jain (Smt.) v. ACIT (2020) 80 ITR 464 ( Delhi) (Trib)S.48 :Capital gains — Cost of acquisition — Valuation of land and building —Property let out -Valuation should be on basis of rent capitalisation method [ S.45 ]
R. Rosalin Vasanthi ( Smt.) v. ITO (2020) 80 ITR 525 (Chennai) (Trib)S.45: Capital gains – Sale of shares – Penny stock – Assessment in search cases — Unexplained Income — Purchase of shares and sale transactions through Online Mode – Merely on presumption addition cannot be made – The presumption needs to be corroborated by some evidence to establish the same. [ S.10(34) , 68 , 69 132(4) 132(4A) ]
Dipesh Ramesh Vardhan v. Dy CIT ( 2020) 81 ITR 91 (SN) 195 DTR 161/ 208 TTJ 318 ( Mum) (Trib)S. 44D : Foreign companies –Non-Resident — Fees For Technical Services — Technical experts on deputation to India — Not entitled to deduction- Ruling given by Authority not binding either on department or Tribunal – Fees for included services taxable — Not entitled to deduction [ S.10B ]
General Motors Overseas Corporation v. ACIT (IT) (2020) 80 ITR 478 (Mum) (Trib)S. 40(a)(ia): Amounts not deductible – Deduction at source – Payment to group companies- Reimbursement of expenses – Not liable to deduct tax at source .[ S. 195 ]
ACIT v. APCO Worldwide (India ) Pvt Ltd ( 2020) BCAJ-October – P. 38 ( Delhi) (Trib)S.37(1) : Business expenditure —Corporate social responsibility expenses —Matter remanded [ S.80G ]
First American (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2020) 80 ITR 538 ( Bang) (Trib)