Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (8) TMI 73 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 68 - deceleration under VDIS scheme - whether items sold in the present year is the same which was declared by the assessee under VDIS - Held that:- As per page No. 2 of the original assessment order available on page 8 of the paper book, out of ₹ 560,730/- being total sales consideration, sale of gold is for ₹ 185,730/- and sale of diamonds is for ₹ 375,000/-. Regarding sale proceeds of gold, it is of the opinion that since gold jewellery was converted in to gold, its sale for ₹ 185,730/- should be accepted and resultant long term capital loss on sale of gold should be allowed. Thus direct the A.O. accordingly because gold sold and declared under VDIS cannot be different and this is not the case of the revenue that gold sold is more that gold declared under VDIS 1997. Regarding Diamonds, mere Carat quantity alone cannot determine that the Diamond sold and declared under VDIS 1997 are same because the price of the price of Diamond mainly depends upon quality of the Diamonds being its cut and colour apart from its size. Regarding this sale of Diamonds for ₹ 375,000/-, do not know the size and the cut and colour of diamonds are also not known because the same is not mentioned in the VDIS declaration. Hence it is seen that the assessee has failed to establish that the diamonds sold in the present year and declared under VDIS are same. Hence, feel that no interference is called for regarding addition in respect of sale of diamonds of ₹ 375,000/-. None of the Tribunal orders cited above by the ld.AR of the assessee is rendering any help to the assessee in respect of diamond sale issue and since, the assessee has failed to establish this fact that the Diamonds sold in the present year are the same Diamonds which declared by the assessee in VDIS declaration 1997 as directed by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court and therefore, find no reason to interfere with the order of the ld.CIT(A) in respect of diamond issue. - Decided against assessee.
|