Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (1) TMI 591 - ITAT AHMEDABADAddition u/s. 40A(3) - HELD THAT:- On the basis of the aforesaid exceptional circumstance the assessee had pleaded to be exempt from the rigors of section 40A(3) of the Act relying on Rule 6DD(g) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The findings of the Ld. CIT(A), upholding the disallowance, are to the effect that the assessee had not substantiated its claim of exemption from the provision of Section 40A as per Rule 6DD(g) of the Act. He has pointed out that neither the name nor address of the sellers of the land was submitted nor it was shown whether the area where the land was located was served with banking facilities or not. The Ld. CIT(A) has also pointed out that the land purchased was stock-in-trade of the assessee and has further relied on a decision of ITAT Indore Bench in the case of Kunjika Construction [2013 (4) TMI 783 - ITAT INDORE] which he stated was passed on identical facts. the addition was upheld. In view of the above categorical findings of the Ld. CIT(A) demonstrating ineligibility of the assessee from exemption from the rigors of section 40A(3) of the Act, we see no reason to interfere in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) - In view of the above the order of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition made u/s 40A is upheld Addition on account of preliminary expenses - HELD THAT:- This claim has been disallowed not on account of it being preliminary expenses but on account of the fact that it resulted in loss of equivalent amount of the assessee and since the return was filed belatedly the assessee was debarred in law from carrying forward the said loss. In substance it is the carry forward of loss of ₹ 6,44,785/- which has been denied to the assessee. Since the Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the same applying the statutory provisions of law we see no reason to disagree with the Ld. CIT(A). The order of the Ld. CIT(A) upholding the denial of carry forward of loss of ₹ 6,44,785/- is, therefore, upheld. Ground No. 3 raised by the assessee is dismissed.
|