Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 1643 - AT - Income TaxDenial of loss from business income - Held that:- CIT(A) while considering this ground of appeal observed that the assessee could recover ₹ 89,216/- in February 2011 and the same is offered in income of AY 2011-12. CIT(A) referred that for claiming the deduction as bad debts, the assessee has satisfied two condition; (i) amount claimed as bad-debt which has been offered in income in current year or earlier year (ii) The amount is actually written off in books. CIT(A) further concluded that the assessee has not fulfilled the condition no.1. The assessee has not offered in the income in any of the year. The alternative plea of assessee was not examined by the ld CIT(A) under section 37 of the Act, holding that specific provision will override the general provision. We are unable to agree with his view, since section 36(1)(iii) and section 37 operate in different field. Thus, we admit the plea of assessee to consider the allowability of loss under section 37 of the Act and restore the issue to the file of AO. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purpose. Taxing the gift received from Dinesh J. Shah HUF u/s. 56 - Held that:- The Hyderabad Tribunal in ITO vs. Dr. M. Shobha Ravhuveera [2014 (5) TMI 41 - ITAT HYDERABAD] while considering the identical ground hold that HUF is nothing but the group of relative. Merely because it has given a legal status as a HUF, the individual do not lose their identity as relative and such group of relative, who are member of HUF clearly falls within the definition of term 'relative' as prescribed in the Explanation to Clause-5 of sub-section 2 of section 56 - Decided in favour of assessee Treatment of gift from Pankaj J Shah HUF as income under the head 'income from other source' - assessee explained that Pankak J Shah HUF consist of Pankaj J Shah ( brother of assessee's father), Mrs Bharti P Shah ( wife of Pankaj J Shah) and Amish P Shah ( son of Pankaj J Shah) and Mrs. Bharti Shah/ Cousin of assessee. However - Held that:- In our intervention that if there is any decision in his favour on this issue, since the assessee is not a member of Pankaj J Shah HUF. The ld AR for the assessee fairly conceded that this gift received from Pankaj J Shah HUF in wherein the assessee is not a member. And some of the members are not covered by the definition of 'relatives' as prescribed under section 56(2)(vi) of the Act. - Decided against assessee
|