Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (10) TMI 937 - ITAT DELHIAssessment of rental income - income from house property or business income - Held that:- We note that the assessee is in the real estate business and also in the jewellery business and as such the income of the assessee is to be assessed as business income. Moreover, if the action of the AO is confirmed the assessee will be claiming additional deduction u/s 24 @ 30% in addition to the business and administrative expenses as the assessee is in the real estate business and the income of the assessee will be assessed lower than the returned income. In view of the above, we are of the view that that there is no proper justification for changing the head of income which will result in reduction of return income and accordingly the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly directed the AO to assess the rental income as business income as claimed by the assessee, which does not need any interference on our part. Disallowance under the head interest expenses, under the head salary and wages as business expenses, under the head Director’s remuneration and under the head depreciation - Held that:- It is an admitted fact that assessee is evidently in the real estate business and also in jewellery business and as such the assessee is eligible for deduction of all the business expenses and the depreciation etc. and accordingly, Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted all the additions/disallowances made by the AO, which does not need any interference on our part, hence, we uphold the same and reject the ground no. 2 raised by the Revenue. Unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 - Held that:- We note that in this case the share capital money has been received through the banking channel and all the details and confirmations of the parties were submitted before the AO but the AO has selectively made the addition of ₹ 30,00,000/- in the case of two share holders only without any valid reasons, which is not permissible under the law. We further note that no material evidence has been collected against the assessee for making the selective addition of the two shareholders of the share capital of ₹ 30,00,000/-only out of total share capital of ₹ 68,30,000/- and accordingly the addition made by the AO was rightly deleted by the Ld. CIT(A), which does not need any interference on our part, hence, we uphold the same and reject the ground no. 3 raised by the revenue.
|