Messages

No case laws required. Interest u/s 234C, as per the Act, is charged only on returned income and not on income assessed. When it is explicit in the Act why to take help from the case law.
Show the Act and argue. Take the help of any Singhania books.

Unfortunately, the decision reported in 243 ITR 48 is reversed by Apex Court in the later decision reported in 251 ITR 200 but that doesnot mean the words stated therein have lost its value. The question framed before it is reversed. I dont mean to say that what has been stated sri Ashutosh Mujamdar is incorrect. Infact, I support his argument and only to share that the quoted case law is reversed by Apex Court in a later decision cited above. 

sec. 54F is enacted with an intention to encourage the housing sector. In the circumstances, the intention is, atleast in my opinion, definitely fulfilled. If you see the provisions of sec. 54EC is also, the funds received on account of capital gains should be utilised for infrastructure facilities and not for any other purpose. Further, the said funds can be utilised for any other purpose after the lackin period is expired. In the same way, in 54F also, if the funds are utilised for construction/purchase of the house and that house cannot be sold within 3 years which means that after 3 years the same can be sold and the funds thereon can be utilised for any other purpose the beneficiary intened to.  Coming to the problem on hand, the person is helpless and what has happend is not in his control and therefore, if the decision is against, need not hesitate to go for further appeal thinking about the sense or not, definitely, the same should be appealed against. We are not sure of any final outcome and it is worth trying. Nobody will assure  final decision, however, one thing is certain,  we may read a case law in the name of the person in future what ever may be the final outcome.  please go ahead and file an appeal.

There is no rule that the new house should be purchased/constructed with the sale proceeds of the capital asset sold as per the citations reported in 45 DTR 208(Mad), 49 SOT 504, 117 taxmann 123 and 107 taxman 591. However, it was held that new house should be purchased with the sale proceeds of the capital in the citation reported in 197 Taxman 52. For the expenses incurred before sale of the house and the construction of the house is completed after the sale of the capital asset the gainful reference can be made from the decisions reported in 165 ITR 571(as stated in earlier reply) and 234 ITR 753

If wife had separate sources of income and her own funds have been utilised for construction of the house property alongwith the funds of the husband besides the bank loan obtained on both names then she is also eligible for interest.
Incase she donot have any separate sources of income and only for the name sake the house is constructed in joint names, then irrespctive interest payment, the husband will only eligible for deduction u/s 24

the daughter will get deduction in all circumstances because the amount is deposited in her account. The rebate u/s 88 will be allowed only when the amount is flown from the taxable income of the assessee once upon a time. As per my knowledge, this restriction has been done away with and therefore, in all circumstances the daughter will get deduction envisaged u/s 80C

Apart from what is stated in the above replies, if it is proved beyond doubt that the asset was purchased 6 years back it need not be proved once again whether it is with accounted sources or unaccounted sources because IT department can tax only the unaccounted income earned for the last six years. Therefore, if the asset is purchased with unaccounted income more than 6 years back the person will get indexation benefit.

For the capital asset foregone by the client he had got 5 flats(some other capital assets) and therefore he has to pay tax on the long term capital gains accrued on this transaction. The construction cost of 5 flats to the builder is the sale consideration received and the land registered for the seven flats is only the lcost of acquisition alongwith the cost of the super structure and improvements can be claimed by him to arrive at the correct capital gains in this transaction. with regard to deduction u/s 54, yes he is entitled for deduction. However, in my opinion the deduction should be restricted to one flat. BUt recently the high court of Karnataka held that the duduction is available for more than one flat in the decision reported in 331 ITR 211. Most important thing is when the 5 flats acquired are sold definitely, tax on capital gains ( long term or short term depending on the period of holding) should again be paid. For the above proposition you may refer to the following decisions 89 ITD 73, 106 ITD 388, 260 ITR 491, 294 ITR 196, 23 DTR 140, 122 ITD 388, 323 ITR 40, 26 DTR 403, 124 TTJ 387 and finally 301 ITR 124.

you can take the alternative argument that carbon credits are not at all taxable. Because department is relying on the SC decision which is on duty draw backs you can take the argument that duty draw backs are taxable in view of the  specific provisions of sec. 28(iiia)/(iiib)/(iiic) whereas there is no specific provision like the above to tax carbon credits. Further, in DTC to be introduced, carbon credits are taxed separately whereas in Incometax Act 1961 there is no provision to tax such carbon credits. If this argument is taken, there appears to be some chances, at least some appellate authorities at some point of time may think  in a different manner and allow relief otherwise, it is very difficult to counter the argument of the department.

if the donor has proof for holding property since 1986 taxing the siad amount, even if unaccounted in his hands, doesnot arise because the incometax recognises the unaccounted income only for six assessment years. If the donor has proof that he is holding the said property prior to six assessment years taxability of the said amount in his hands donot arise at all. Let us see in the hands of donee. If the relationship of the donor and donee is not the one specified in sec. 56(2), then there is every possibility to tax that gift in the hands of the donee. With regard to the second query, if the transactions are  arranged in only one financial year, an intelligent officer can pierce through the layers and he will prove that the ultimate aim of the transaction is to travel of the gifted property from A to Z and their relationship is naturally the one which is not specified in sec. 56(2) and therefore, he can say that the transaction is intended to dupe the government and accordingly, can invoke the famous case law of Mcdowell & Co  and he can tax the same. Then to get relief also U  have to really fight before appellate authorities. But the transactions are arranged in two  or more  financial years then no body can prove the real intention of the donor and ultimate donee. with regard to ur third query also, there is no possibility of taxing the same under normal circumstances. If the officer is very intelligent and extraordinary then he will tax it but you may get relief before appellate authorities. 

In the given situation, he can safely file the return with the income asper the provisions of sec.44AD and his capital account will be credited with the profit reflected by him. He can say that he had not maintained any books of accounts. The excess profits earned by him can be spent outside the books of accounts.

please read the section carefully and you will find anomaly in framing of the section. if the assessee wants to show less percentage than the prescribed percentage then in ordinary meaning the books of accounts of the assessee should get audited. But if u go through the section it says that and the income of the assessee is more than the amount which is not chargeable to incometax means both the conditions cumulatively fulfilled for application of the said sub-section. Suppose, if a person's turnover is 58 lakhs and he wants to show 2% on the said turnover then his income is only Rs. 1,16,000/- and this amount is less than the maximum amount which is not chargeable to tax and therefore, he need not audit his accounts provided he had no other income other than income on this turnover. This is a strange situation and legislature donot envisage this. For the time being the business men can escape from this route also.

Calcutta High Court also held that bill discounting charges cannot be held as interest  and therefore the provisions of sec 194A are not applicable to bill discounting charges. The decision is available in taxinidiaonline.com. Please refer whether u take help from the same.

please see the case law reported in 331 ITR 59. It may help you though it is on incometax but not on wealth tax. But the issue in dispute is agricultural lands only. Straight on the issue I could not find any case laws.

as per the decision reported in 331 ITR 211 the investment in both the houses is eligible for exemption/deduction u/s 54. But I dont personally accept this decision.