Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2013 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (5) TMI 745 - AT - Income TaxAddition on account of low household expenses on protective basis - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- the Commissioner (Appeals), in the block assessment, has deleted the addition purely on merits. Even though this may be a subject matter of appeal before the Tribunal by the Department in the block assessment proceedings but that issue would be decided there only and not in the regular assessment proceedings wherein only protective addition has been made. Thus, the protective addition made by the Assessing Officer in the regular assessment order dated 30th March 2001, in our opinion, has no legs to stand. Consequently, the findings given by the Commissioner (Appeals) in this appeal are upheld. The grounds raised by the Revenue is treated as dismissed. Against revenue. Income from hiring of tankers as undisclosed income - computation under the normal provision of the Act or the special provision of Sec. 44AE - Held that:- it is noted that the assessee was having eleven tankers which is not in dispute. Provisions of section 44AE, will only apply to the assessee who owns not more than ten goods carriages. Thus, in case of the assessee who is in possession of more than ten goods carriages, then by virtue of the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 44AE the deeming provision of section 44AE will not apply to the facts of the present case. Moreover, it has also not been disputed that the assessee has been maintaining regular books of account for the business of hire of eleven tankers which are also subjected to audit under section 44AB. On this ground also, the provisions of section 44AE will not apply in view of sub-section (7) of section 44AE. Against revenue. Exemption u/s 10(15) - whether CIT(A) erred in holding that in A.Y. 1999-2000 the assessee's status was that of R & NOR and allowed exemption u/s 10(15) - Held that:- As decided in assessee's own case assessee was out of India for more than 182 days in both the A. Ys. so he was not resident of India for that period. As far as employment is concerned, it is found that he had gone to Dubai as a Manager of a Dubai firm. The assessee had filed copies of the visa, passport, appointment letter of Dubai concern to the A.O. The said documents are at page nos. 13 to 18 of the paper book filed by the assessee. The A.0. has not mentioned anything contradiction the said factual position. Considering the fact of the case provisions of section 6(1)(c) are held not to be applicable in assessee's case. In light of the above discussion,assessee was non-resident for the A.Y.1999-2000 following the predessor & as he was Non-Resident for the said period and resident but Not Ordinarily Resident for succeeding eight years remittance sent by him from Dubai are held to be exempt from tax. Against revenue.
|