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 253 - AT - Income TaxOutstanding sales tax liability – Held that:- If the amount of liability has not been not deducted in arriving at the quantum of taxable income which could be on the ground of deferral of sales-tax being considered as deemed payment, so that deduction in its respect stands claimed, the same could definitely be considered as income on cessation of liability - The onus on the assessee in-as-much as it is its’ claim that no deduction qua the said liability/s has in fact been claimed for the relevant year/s – thus, the matter is remitted back to the AO for verification of assessee’s claim by issuing definite findings of fact. Advance forfeited but outstanding in books of accounts - taxability u/s 51 – Agreement to sale not materialized – Held that:- It could not be ascertained as to how the primary facts being undisputed and un-rebutted - the assessee’s income when the relevant asset (property) continues to be owned by the assessee and, accordingly, reflected in its accounts - assessee has clarified that the asset sold by it during the FY 2006-07 was in fact its factory building at Vapi – the amount has nothing to do with the sale - The amount is a capital receipt in the assessee’s hands, and which character would not undergo any change due to lapse of time - it would stand to be reduced from the cost of the relevant asset (residential plot) on its sale, i.e., if and when it takes place, in terms of section 51 of the Act. Disallowance of claim of rent – Held that:- The assessee explaining its inability to improve matters as the recipient was not co-operating with it - No improvement in its case, besides stating that the godown had been rented at ₹ 2300/- per month w.e.f August 2006 onwards, stands made by the assessee - if the assessee could demonstrate the actual renting of the godown from Shri Lakdawalla and payment of the sum to him, i.e., as a fact, there is no particular reason for disbelieving the assessee’s claim - The amount stands paid as an advance, so that it having been forfeited by the landlord, it is quite possible that he may not co-operate with the assessee - The onus to establish the basic facts afore-stated would be though on the assessee – thus, the matter is remitted back to the AO for verification. Depreciation on a staff quarter – Held that:- There was no merit in the assessee’s claim, which thus is only a bald one – it could not be observed that even the name of the relevant employee or any evidence of his working for the assessee having being adduced at any stage. Notional income from house property – Held that:- The assessee wrongly agitates the addition on this ground at ₹ 1,68,000 - CIT(A) having allowed it specific and substantial relief in-as-much as the estimation by the AO was ad hoc, while the municipal valuation would, besides being conservative, make for an objective criterion - No improvement in its case stands made by the assessee - reference to the municipal tax bill during hearing reveals municipal tax to be unpaid not only for FY 2010-11 but also for the preceding years as well – Decided partly in favour of Assessee.
|