• Welcome to itatonline.org Forum.
 

News:

ITAT issues guidelines for stay of demand.

Main Menu
Menu

Show posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Show posts Menu

Messages - camanojgupta

#61
1. In the case of Ajay C. Mehta v. Dy. CIT (2008) 305 ITR 155 (Ahd-Trib) : (2008) 114 ITD 628 (Ahd-Trib) : (2008) 115 TTJ (Ahd-Trib) 281 it was held that conversion of share warrants into equity shraes amounts to tranfer but no gain/loss can be computed for want of full value of consideration.
2. It will be 36 months but as said above since no gain/loss can be computed hence no such req would arise.

CA MANOJ GUPTA
JODHPUR
09828510543
#62
Dear Mr Subodh
Intt on SB A/c has always been taxed as income from other sources(IFOS). And its income by any standards or logic. If its income then its computation can be made within four corners of law. As per section 57 only specified exp can be allowed against IFOS. The exp shall be in the nature that it has been incurred for the purpose of making or earning the income. Car loan intt is not an exp incurred to earn SB A/c intt. Both operate in different field.
#63
the AO is correct . In case of a salary person intt on car loan is personal exp.
CA MANOJ GUPTA
JODHPUR
09828510543
#64
Discussion / Re: rectification of mistake
December 02, 2011, 07:19:50 PM
UR QUERY IS NOT CLEAR PL CLARIFY HOW U CALCULATED ALV.
#65
Discussion / Re: CAPITAL GAIN EXEMPTION
December 02, 2011, 07:18:28 PM
Exemption U/s 54F can be claimed in respect of LTCG arising on transfer of land provided the net consideration is invested in a residential house. The problem in this case is this that the assessee had started construction prior to transfer. If u can prove that at the time of receipt of advance the possession of land was also handede over to buyer, which is very easy, then u have a fair chance to exemption under section 54F

CA MANOJ GUPTA
JODHPUR
09828510543
#66
Discussion / Re: rectification of mistake
December 01, 2011, 08:17:18 AM
Pl tell me how a revised return can be filed. The assessment has already be done
#67
exemption under section 10(38) is restricted to shares that too if gain arises on transfer thereof which transaction shall be liable to STT. Share warrants are not traded on a recognised stock exchange hence no STT is levied. Therefore no exemption under section 10(38) will be available.

CA MANOJ GUPTA
JODHPUR
09828510543
#68
Discussion / Re: Deduction U/s 80 IC
November 28, 2011, 05:49:59 PM
Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Mega Pacakages has held that An assessee is entitled to benefit of deduction under section 80-IC for remaining unexpired period after his proprietorship concern is converted into a partnership concern.
CA MANOJ GUPTA
9828510543
#69
Discussion / Re: Calculation of time limit u/s 147
October 20, 2011, 05:26:27 PM
In this case ending assessment year is not relevant
Four years would end on 31.03.2011
No action can be taken after 31.03.2011 if the case does not fall in the proviso to section 147
CA MANOJ GUPTA
JODHPUR
09828510543
#70
tax need to be deucted under section 194C and not under section 194J
For 194J profession is one which is referred to in section 44AA or notified thereunder

CA MANOJ GUPTA
JODHPUR
09828510543
#71
Discussion / Re: s.80(IB)(10)- ownership of land
September 22, 2011, 08:35:25 AM
In Radhe Developers & Ors. v. ITO & Ors. (2008) 20 (II) ITCL 512 (Ahd 'A'-Trib) : (2008) 23 SOT 420 (Ahd 'A'-Trib) : (2008) 113 TTJ (Ahd-Trib) 300 it was held that deduction under section 80-IB is allowable to an undertaking developing and building housing project, whether it is developed by it as contractor or as an owner.
In the case of ACIT v. M/s Sashwath Constructions (P) Ltd. in I.T.A. No. 1069 (Mds.)/2008 for the assessment year 2005-06 dated 25-2-2009, it was held as follows :
"In our opinion it is not sine qua non for a developer to become the de jure owner of the land. It is quite possible to develop the property with the consent of the owner. It transpires from the perusal of the records that the assessee was the de facto owner of the property, as the entire allotment procedure was executed by the assessee-company only. We have noted that the assessee did incur all the expenses connected with the development of the property. Application for planning permission was also made by the assessee. Necessary fee for the same was paid by it. Road formation was also done by the assessee. Besides, for marketing the flats the assessee did advertise the property also. We have perused the reasonings adduced by the CIT(A) in the impugned order. In our opinion he took a correct view in the matter and his order calls for no interference on this count. Accordingly we uphold the same."
In ACIT v. C. Rajini (2011) 37 (II) ITCL 548 (Chen 'A'-Trib), similar views were taken
So the ITAT has so far taken the view that developer need not be thwe owner of land
LET US SEE WHAT THE HC DECIDES
CA MANOJ GUPTA
JODHPUR
09828510543
#72
Discussion / Re: HUF
August 03, 2011, 09:28:56 AM
AS SOON AS ONE GETS MARRIED HUF IS CREATED
NO NEED TO HAVE A CHILD

CA MANOJ GUPTA
JODHPUR
09828510543
#73
Discussion / Re: Sec 44AD
August 03, 2011, 09:25:26 AM
Under the scheme of the Act the profession is one which is specified under section 44AA
1. Photography and LIC agency are not the business specified under section 44AA hence they are treated as business
Further the ICAI in its guidance note under section 44AB has treated LIC agency as business activity
2. Further the supreme court In G.K. Choksi & Co. v. CIT (2007) 19 (I) ITCL 194 (SC) : (2007) 295 ITR 376 (SC) : (2007) 165 Taxman 299 (SC)held  that Part D of Chapter IV consists of sections 28 to 43 which deals with profits and gains of business or profession. Though the phrase has been used in certain sections as 'business or profession', but nowhere has the phrase been used as the business and profession'. In fact, wherever the Legislature intended that the benefit of a particular provision should be for both business or profession, it has used the words 'business or profession' and wherever it intended to restrict the benefit to either business or profession, then the Legislature has used the word either 'business' or 'profession', meaning thereby that it intended to extend the benefit to either 'business' or 'profession', i.e. the one would not include the other. If the expression 'business' is interpreted to include within its scope 'profession' as well, it would be doing violence to the provisions of the Act. Such interpretation would amount to first creating an imaginative lacuna and then filling it up, which is not permissible in law.
I beleive that above discussion will clarify the doubts raised at the forum
CA MANOJ GUPTA
JO
JODHPUR
09828510543
#74
Delhi bench of ITAT in ITO v.
Kanha Vanaspati Ltd 13 SOT 285 has held that tax is deductible under section 194A on payments in the nature of bill discounting charges

CA MANOJ GUPTA
JODHPUR
09828510543