Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.27 seconds)Section 154 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 37 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Xvi vs Sh. Venkat Rao Shridhar on 31 July, 2013
In that case, assessee' share
comes to Rs.1,41,27,403/-. After giving credit to the accounted sum of
Rs.1 crore in the books of account, the balance required to be added is
Rs.43,27,403/- and not the lesser amount of Rs.34,50,311/-, as
adopted by the CIT(A) in his order. To that extent of Rs. 6,77,092/-,
(Rs.41,27,403 - Rs.34,50,311), there is loss to the Revenue. Further,
we find the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of
CIT Vs. S. Venkat Reddy vide ITA No.501/2013 was not considered
which is relevant for the proposition that date of possession of property
prevails over the date of registration of property for the purpose of
determination of the market value. As per the Ld. Counsel for the
assessee, the date for determining the value of the property required to
be considered is 01-08-2007. Considering the large number of issues
and the arguments raised by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, we are
of the view that there is a need for bringing out the facts relating to the
ownership of the property, requirement of exclusion of
Rs.1,07,41,941/- of Mr. Rahul Bafna, the date of registration of
13
ITA Nos.732 & 904/PUN/2013 &
ITA No.447/PUN/2015
Smt. Taradevi Ratanlal Bafna
property vs. the date of possession of the property qua the applicability
of judgment of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court (supra), whether
the property transferred by the partner to the firm constitutes stock in
trade or otherwise etc.
Section 69B in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 14A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
K.G. Hotel Pvt. Ltd., 1967 vs Acit on 15 January, 2008
24. Per Contra, Ld. DR for the Revenue relied heavily on the orders of
the AO and the CIT(A) and submitted that lower authorities have
rightly applied the provisions of section 50C of the Act as the asset
transferred by the partner does not constitute stock in trade in the
hands of the assessee or the firm. Referring to the arguments of the
Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the provisions of section 45(3) of the
Act overrides the provisions of section 50C of the Act, Ld. DR relied on
the decision of the Lucknow Bench of the Tribunal in the case of
Carlton Hotel Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT in order dated 14-11-2008.
Section 132 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
1