Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (1) TMI 396 - AT - Income TaxValidity of assessment u/s 153A - Held that:- Warrant of authorisation u/s 132 was issued in the joint names of three persons, M/s Lahari Constructions, M/s Lahari Infrastructure Ltd and Others - The authority who signed the warrant had information in his possession and had reason to believe that these three persons are in possession of undisclosed assets such as money, bullion etc - He has signed the warrant in the joint names of three persons - The authorizing authority had information in his possession in consequence of which he had reason to believe that undisclosed income is in the possession of M.P.B. Kutumba Rao - If the Authorising Officer intended to search Shri M.P.B. Kutumba Rao himself, he should have issued an independent warrant and search individually for conducting search in his case only - It is not open for the assessing authority to assess Shri M.P.B. Kutumba Rao u/s 153A of the Act on the basis of seized documents seized during the course of search pursuant to the warrant of authorisation which in the joint of names - The provisions of section 153A are not applicable as the warrant was not issued in the name of Shri M.P.B. Kutumba Rao - If the Assessing Officer wanted to make assessment in the case of the assessee, he should have done u/s 153C of the IT Act - Decided against Revenue. Estimation of income u/s 44AD - Held that:- Following M/s C. Eswara Reddy & Co [2011 (1) TMI 1238 - ITAT HYDERABAD] - The assessee has taken contracts from Nagarjuna Construction Company, which, in turn, has taken the main contract from the Government - The estimation of 5% net profit on gross receipts as held by the Tribunal is justified - As per the provision of section 44AD as applicable for the assessment year under consideration and the provisions which are applicable with effect from 1.4.2011 - The deduction available u/s 30 to 38 shall be deemed to have been already given full effect and no further deduction under those sections shall be allowed - No further deduction shall be allowed for depreciation - Partly allowed in favour of assessee. Interest deduction u/s 24 - Held that:- The assessee has furnished certificate given by Oriental Bank of Commerce dated 22/09/2008 regarding the details of payment of housing loan for FY 2007-08 from 01/04/2007 to 31/03/2008 towards principal and interest paid by the assessee - The learned counsel submitted that only after completion of house, repayment has been started and therefore assessee is entitled for deduction towards housing loan interest - The learned DR has not controverted the submissions of the assessee nor brought any contrary material on record to suggest that the submissions made by the assessee are wrong - Decided in favour of assessee. Income from sale of land - Held that:- Following CIT Vs. Intezar Ali [2013 (8) TMI 704 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] - The sale consideration received by the assessee only from the sale of agricultural property is to be treated as income from sale of agricultural land - The Department has not brought anything on record to establish that the amount deposited by the assessee is from other sources - Decided in favour of assessee.
|