Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (7) TMI 839 - AT - Income TaxIndexed cost of improvement – computation of long term capital gain on development right - Held that:- The assessee has discharged the onus by providing the details of expenditure and payments made during the assessment proceedings - the assessee cannot be compelled to produce original bills/vouchers/books of accounts of M/s. Ramesh Builders to examine the claim and the personal presence of the developer – there was no justification on the part of the authorities to deny/disallow the expenditure claimed by the assessee. - Decided in favor of assessee. As regard the additional indexed cost of improvement claimed by the assessee, it is relevant to point out that the assessee, during the course of the assessment proceedings, has revised the claim of deduction claimed in the return of income - , according to the Ld.CIT(A), there was no binding obligation on the assessee to sign an agreement with the builder for his efforts to release the property from the State Government acquisition. Thus, the Ld.CIT(A) was of the view that the claim of development charges by the assessee was after thought and the said expenditure was not spent by the assessee and thereby confirmed the disallowance made by the AO. - Held that:- CIT(A) are justified for denying the additional claim, there was no reason to interfere with the decision of the CIT(A) – Decided against Assessee. Income from house property – Held that:- CIT(A) determined the value per month which he considered to be a reasonable value - Neither the AO nor the CIT(A) has estimated the value of property on any reasonable basis - estimation by both the authorities is based on assumptions and presumptions which is not legally tenable - the AO is directed to accept the value shown by the assessee in respect of the property – Decided in favour of Assessee. Expenses of rental & electricity, repairs & maintenances and office expenses – Held that:- The authorities were of the view that the assessee was running the business of bill discounting from the assessee’s house and due to the involvement of personal use, the disallowance has been made/confirmed by the AO/CIT(A) - similar expenses have been accepted in the past and subsequent AYs, no disallowance is warranted on this count - the assessee is running the business of bill discounting from her house and therefore the involvement of personal use cannot be ruled out - similar expenses have been allowed in the earlier and subsequent AYs - the ad hoc disallowances are restricted to 1/3 of the expenditure claimed by the assessee – Decided partly in favour of Assessee. Regarding the adhoc disallowance of office expenses, assessee has claimed the expenses under various head - assessee has not produced proper voucher for the expenditure and personal expenditure of the proprietor, CIT(A) is justified in confirming the ad hoc disallowance – Decided against Assessee.
|