|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 541 Records
-
2014 (6) TMI 842 - ITAT MUMBAI
Confirmation of addition – Receipt of gifts from son – Held that:- The documents are prima–facie sufficient to hold the genuineness of the transactions and also the source of the credit entries made in the assessee’s book - The creditworthiness and the capacity of the donor also cannot be doubted also for the reason that he is the managing director of the British company through which he has remitted the sum and has also confirmed the same before the AO in person - his Balance Sheet filed in India shows investment of more than Rs. 10.25 crores as on 31st March 2008 - once all these documents and evidences have been furnished, the primary onus of the assessee stands discharged and the onus shifts upon the AO to prove that the assessee’s explanation as well as the evidences are not tenable on the basis of any material collected by way of enquiry.
Simply because such a transaction of gift has not been mentioned in the income tax return of income of the donor filed in India, it cannot lead to any inference that he did not had the capacity - being a resident of U.K., he is required to disclose the source in the return of income filed in the U.K - factum of gift transaction is between son and father, there was no reason to hold that such a gift is not genuine – thus, the order of the CIT(A) is set aside – Decided in favour of Assessee.
-
2014 (6) TMI 841 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Confirmation of penalty u/s 158BFA(2) of the Act – Furnishing of inaccurate particulars - Unexplained investment in jewellery, undisclosed source of cash and unexplained investment in valuable articles – Held that:- The addition on account of cash and investment in articles were sustained on estimated basis - With respect to the addition on account of investment in jewellery it is seen that Assessee had stated to have received the jewellery from her sister in Nairobi but in the absence of any supporting declaration filed before customs/ immigration, addition to the extent of 190 gms of jewellery was sustained - there is nothing to suggest that the explanation of the Assessee was found to be untrue – Relying upon CIT vs. Becharbhai Parmar [2012 (4) TMI 418 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] - the penalty u/s 158BFA(2) is not mandatory in nature - Section 273B which provides that penalty shall not be imposed in certain cases on the assessee proving that there was reasonable cause for failure to pay tax refers to several provisions such as sections 271, 271A etc. makes no mention of Section 158BFA(2) - This still does not mean that penalty under section 158BFA(2) is mandatory – the additons have been upheld on estimation basis , thus, no penalty is leviable – Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (6) TMI 840 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Deletion of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of low GP – Failure to produce books of accounts and other documentary evidence – Unexplained investment u/s 131 of the Act – Held that:- In the absence of books of accounts, the Revenue was fully justified in making additions but the quantum addition is not sufficient for levying of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for the reason that the parameters of judging the justification for addition made in assessment case of Assessee is different from the penalty imposed on account of concealment of income – Relying upon Navjivan Oil Mills. Versus Commissioner of Income Tax [2001 (7) TMI 81 - GUJARAT High Court] - when the addition was made on estimate basis, penalty u/s 271(l)(c) was not leviable – the penalty on the addition is set aside.
There is no finding of the AO that the bank account in which the cash sales were deposited were disclosed in the balance sheet - thus, the matter is remitted back to the AO for verification of the submissions and as to whether the bank account in which the cash sales are deposited was disclosed in Balance Sheet and thereafter decide the issue – Decided partly in favour of Revenue.
-
2014 (6) TMI 839 - ITAT DELHI
Estimation of income - increase in GP rate - addition in trading results – Rejection of books of accounts – Held that:- The assessee had turnover and had transaction with 252 different parties - the AO rejected the books of account and increased GP rate by 4% - the AO gathered no additional material that could help him recompute the income of the only a small fraction of appellant's gross turnover of Rs.50.3 crores, the effect of difference on confirmation of account results in the appellant having booked lesser expenses in respect of these five parties compared to what was shown on confirmation from them - the very basis of rejection of books of accounts is faulty as circumstances did not require such a drastic measure by disregarding audited books and vouchers - The AO has not given details of the manner in which any income was not booked or any expenses were over booked - the action of the AO in making the best judgement assessment, thereby increasing the GP of the assessee by 4% was based on incorrect appreciation of the facts, on insufficient facts to reject the books, suffers from lack of natural justice to the assessee u/s 144 - the expenses were clearly in the nature of prior period expenses and need to be disallowed in making the computation of income for the current year - CIT(A) has dealt with the entire issue and has rightly decided the issue in favour of the assessee and there was no infirmity in the order – Decided against Revenue.
-
2014 (6) TMI 838 - ITAT DELHI
Cancellation of reassessment of proceedings u/s 147 of the Act – Change of opinion – Arrear wage revision - Held that:- In order to willy nilly bring the amount to tax the AO again issued notice u/s 148 of the Act - assessee is a government loss making company and in the year as it turned into huge profit, it was decided to revise the wages and give the arrears to employees which is being sought to be reassessed – Relying upon Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi Versus M/s. Kelvinator of India Limited [2010 (1) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - reassessment cannot be made on change of opinion, assessment cannot be reopened merely on the basis of audit objection as it constitutes mere an opinion by some other agency.
The issue is about wage revision (arrears) and is duly considered during the course of assessment by way of specific query which was replied by the assessee – AO being satisfied allowed the claim during regular assessment u/s 143(3) - Based on the audit objection AO proposed section 154 and again required the assessee for explanation which was provided – section 154 proceedings were also dropped - the assessment was again reopened u/s 147 – the AO in order to tow the line of audit objection and to avoid any ramification therefrom reopened the assessment u/s 147 without valid reason - Once the issue was examined during the course of assessment which emerges from the record so clearly, it cannot be held to be a proper case of reopening of assessment – thus, there was no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) – Decided against Revenue.
-
2014 (6) TMI 837 - ITAT DELHI
Deletion of disallowance of USA expenses - non deduction of TDS on remittance to non-resident - reimbursement of expenses - Held that:- Following Himalya International Ltd. Versus DCIT Circle-12(1), New Delhi and ITO, Ward-12(4), New Delhi Versus Himalya International Ltd. [2014 (3) TMI 617 - ITAT DELHI] - all US expenses incurred by the consignment agent on behalf of the assessee were the responsibility of the assessee as per MOU dated 19.9.2002 and subsequent agreement dated 30.3.2004, which were also certified by CPA audit report, when actual export sale was effected at USA through consignment agent on behalf of the assessee, then expenses claimed by the assessee for the purpose of business cannot be treated as post sales expenses and observations and findings of the Assessing Officer are not correct and justified in this regard and we set aside the same to this extent only – relying upon GE India Technology Centre Private Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. [2010 (9) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] followed – thus, Circular No. 715 dated 8.8.95 is not applicable.
The AO concluded the assessment n contradictory finding because on the one hand, the AO has considered gross sales realized value in USA as sales of the assessee for the financial year under consideration and on the other hand the AO held that the export sale was completed when the consigned goods left the Indian Customs Border and all expenses incurred thereafter were post sale expenses – thus, the first part of findings of the AO are correct that the gross sales realized value in USA is the export sales of the assessee but export sales was not completed when the goods left the Indian Custom Borders because it was consignment which was intended to be sold through consignment agent of the assessee i.e. M/s Global Reliance In. in USA - CIT(A) has very elaborately dealt with the issue and had rightly deleted the addition – Decided against Revenue.
Deletion of late deposit of ESIC and PF - Held that:- Following Commissioner of Income Tax Versus AIMIL Limited and others [2009 (12) TMI 38 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - CIT(A) has allowed the claim of the assessee on account of payment of employees contribution / PF and ESIC - the amount of PF/ESIC was deposited before the due date of filing of return u/s 139(1) of the Act – Decided against Revenue.
-
2014 (6) TMI 836 - ITAT MUMBAI
Disallowance of interest – Applicability of Rule 8D of the Rules – Investment in shares – Held that:- CIT(A) was of the view that a disallowance has to be made in accordance with the provisions of rule 8D(2)(iii) - nothing is borne out from the record that which are the expenses which do not have any bearing or cannot be said to be attributable for earning of exempt income and which expenses are directly relatable to other business activities - In the absence of details, the formula prescribed under rule 8D(2)(iii), has to be applied - provisions of rule 8D is applicable from the AY 2008–09 – thus, the order of the CIT(A) is upheld – Decided against Assessee.
Grant of interest u/s 244 of the Act - Self–assessment tax paid – Held that:- Self–assessment tax is payable on the income shown in any return of income required to be furnished under various provisions of the Act, after taking into account, the amount of tax, if any, paid earlier which can also include advance tax - the self–assessment tax includes any amount of tax which has already been paid under the provisions of the Act - the assessee has paid the tax for the purpose of its taxable income for the AY 2008–09, in the month of July 2008 - due date for filing the return of income was 30th September 2008 - If the tax has been paid prior to the date of filing of return of income, then it has to be construed as amount of "tax already paid" as contemplated in clause (i) of sub–section (1) of section 140A.
The tax paid by the assessee for a sum of Rs. 4.50 crores, is nothing but tax paid under self–assessment tax for the purpose of section 140A and once that is so, the assessee is entitled for interest under section 244A – Relying upon Commissioner of Income-tax Versus Vijaya Bank [2011 (7) TMI 582 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] – thus, the assessee is entitled to refund of self–assessment tax along with the interest u/s 244A, which is to be calculated from the date of payment of tax till the date of refund – Decided in favour of Assessee.
-
2014 (6) TMI 812 - ITAT MUMBAI
Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act – shortfall in deducting TDS - Revenue was of the view that the assessee was only acting as agent and received commission for arrangement of transport – Held that:- if there is any shortfall in deducting TDS, the assessee can be declared to be an assessee in default u/s 201 of the Act and no disallowance can be made by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) – Relying upon COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-XI Versus M/s SK. TEKRIWAL [2012 (12) TMI 873 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] - Decided in favour of assessee.
Non deduction of TDS - bonafide mistake - Held that:- where the certificate u/s 197 has been issued, the assessee can claim that it has a bonafide belief that tax is not required to be deducted on the basis of the certificate for the payment exceeds the exemption limit specified in the certificate. - Ld.CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the disallowance made by the AO on this count. - Decided in favor of assessee.
Disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Act – Cash payment eceeds limit on single day – Held that:- section 40A (3) has been w.e.f 01/04/2009 providing that all the payments made to a person in a single day would be considered for making the disallowance - The amendment is not applicable so far as the case in hand being related to the AY 2008-09 - In the absence of a provision conferring the power to aggregate all the payments made in a single day for making the disallowance during the year under consideration and in view of the position that section 40A (3) as applicable in for the assessment year permits only single payment during the day has to be considered for disallowance - CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the action of the AO in aggregating the sums paid on a day for making the disallowance - the AO is directed to identify each of the payment made by the assessee less than Rs.20,000/- and allow the expenditure – Decided in favour of Assessee.
-
2014 (6) TMI 811 - ITAT CHENNAI
Claim of exemption u/s 54 – Nature of Property sold is housing property or agricultural land - Held that:- The reasons for not treating the property as residential is, the built up area viz-a-viz total land and description of land given in purchase deed - The property is situated within the municipal limits of Sholinganallur, door number has been allotted to the property by Municipal Authorities - once a door number is allotted to the premises, this itself makes it clear that it is not an agricultural property - the property (Long Term Capital Asset) transferred by the assessee is a residential building with land appurtenant there to - The assessee has satisfied all the conditions laid down in section 54 - the assessee is eligible for claiming exemption u/s 54 of the Act – Decided in favour of Assessee.
-
2014 (6) TMI 810 - ITAT MUMBAI
Disallowance u/s 14A of the Act – Dividend income – Held that:- Expenditure has no direct relationship with the income that may arise on its incurring or from investment, so that estimating the expenditure that stands incurred in relation thereto with reference to income arising there-from is without basis, both on facts as well as in law, even as observed by us during hearing - the Revenue also must bear in mind that the disallowance u/s 14A is only of the expenditure actually incurred, so that the assessee’s claim of having in fact not incurred any expenditure or a lower expenditure would need to be examined on merits, and the estimation per rule 8D made, having regard to the common expenditure actually incurred, i.e., on activities yielding taxable income and income which does not form part of the total income under the Act, which would therefore need to be apportioned, and toward which r. 8D stands prescribed by law - Relying upon GODREJ AND BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND ANOTHER [2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - the matter is to be remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication –Decided in favour of Assessee.
-
2014 (6) TMI 809 - ITAT MUMBAI
Stay application – Stay of outstanding demand – Held that:- The outstanding demand has arisen as a result of various additions made to the total income of the assessee which mainly include disallowance u/s 40(a)(i), difference in AIR reconciliation and TP adjustment - the assessee has a good prima facie arguable case - the balance of convenience clearly lies in favour of the assessee and it is a fit case to grant stay of outstanding demand subject to payment of Rs. 30 lacs by the assessee against the outstanding demand in order to make the recovery of original outstanding demand to the extent of 50% - Partial stay granted
-
2014 (6) TMI 808 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Deletion of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act - Facts properly not appreciated – Held that:- The addition in the second round of litigation on the basis of absence of correct address of the parties and in the absence of PAN - the CIT(A) has deleted the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on the ground that there was clear difference of opinion between the two CIT(A)’s - when there were two divergent opinions are possible on an issue, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) could not be levied - CIT(A) has observed that the assessee has offered an explanation regarding sundry creditors which was not found acceptable by the AO - there is no mistake in the order of the CIT(A) while deleting the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, as the assessee has disclosed all the material facts before the AO and there were clearly two divergent opinions in separate two rounds of litigation before the CIT(A)s’ and the lease rentals received from the same sundry creditor parties were accepted by the AO – thus, the order of the CIT(A) is upheld – Decided against Revenue.
-
2014 (6) TMI 807 - ITAT COCHIN
Estimation of profit in real estate business – proceedings u/s 153BC - search and seizure operations - Held that:- the satisfaction of the assessing officer has to emerge from the material found during the course of search operation. - During the course of search in the premises of Jain Housing & Constructions Pvt Ltd, documents disclosing the receipt of 6.5 crores by assessee was found and seized. On the basis of this information, the assessing officer issued notice u/s 153C of the Act since the assessee is not the searched person. Therefore, the contention of the assessee that no material was found during the course of search operation is not correct. - Decided against the assessee.
Filing of belated return in response to notice us/ 153C - Held that:- the belated return filed by the assessee after the expiry of the time limit for filing return of income given is also an information came to the knowledge of the assessing officer in the course of the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the information contained in such belated return can also be considered for completing the assessment. - the contention of the assessing that the assessing officer cannot act upon the belated return filed by the assessee on 19-08- 2009 has no merit at all. - Decided against the assessee.
Estimation of profit - real estate business - assessee acted as aggregator of land for ETL Infrastructure Services Ltd and Jain Housing & Construction Co Pvt Ltd. - Held that:- Taking into consideration the total volume of transactions and the expenditure incurred by the assessee for development of land,etc. this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that estimating the net profit at 1.25% on the receipts from ETL Infrastructure Ltd would meet the ends of justice. - Decided partly in favor of assessee.
Estimation of profit - in addition to acting as an agent / facilitator in purchasing the land has to fill up the land, construct compound wall, road, bridge, etc. - Held that:- Since the assessee has to carry out some developmental work on the land like construction of compound wall, bridge, etc. in addition to facilitating the purchase of land the profit ratio would be little more than that of acting a mere broker. The assessee is not a civil contractor. - CIT(A) has rightly taken into consideration all the material facts with regard to the nature of transaction and work undertaken by the assessee and righty restricted the profit at 5%. – Decided against the assessee.
-
2014 (6) TMI 806 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Denial of exemption u/s 11 of the Act – Objectives of Trust - Shortfall in application of income derived from property - Held that:- Following Society of Presentation Sisters Vs. ITO [2009 (9) TMI 75 - ITAT COCHIN] - no distinction is made between charitable and religious purposes in s. 11(1)(a) - a trust which is partly religious and partly charitable is entitled to exemption u/s 11(1)(a) of the Act - even otherwise, maintenance of mosque and church is to be treated as charitable purpose and not purely religious purpose - exemption u/s 11(1)(a) could not be denied to the assessee trusts which exist for various charitable purposes besides maintenance of chapels and mosques, on the ground that they are partly charitable and partly religious trusts, once no case is made out for application of provisions of section 13 – the AO was not correct in denying exemption u/s 11 in assessee’s case and registration granted to assessee u/s 12A is intact - CIT(A) has rightly appreciated the facts and held that the assessee is entitled to exemption u/s 11 – Decided against Revenue.
Function hall used for commercial purposes – Held that:- Following CIT vs. Narayana Guruviah Chetty's Estate & Charities [2008 (9) TMI 528 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] - so long as the dominant object is of general public utility and there is no profit motive, it cannot be said that the trust/institution is not established for charitable purpose, even if there is some profit in the activity carried on by the trust/institution – thus, the order of the CIT(A) is upheld – Decided against Revenue.
Deletion of corpus donations – Held that:- Following Sukhdeo Charity Estate vs. ITO [1991 (5) TMI 47 - RAJASTHAN High Court] - voluntary contributions received for 'specific purpose' are not assessable as income - even when the assessee had been assessed as AOP and deprived of Section 11 benefits, the AO could assess only net income of the assessee and not gross receipts – thus, the order of the CIT(A) is upheld – Decided against Revenue.
Original audit report not consulted – Held that:- The earlier report showed that amount spent on the objects of the trust as NIL - such a mention was made by mistake - CIT(A) has rightly held that the AO has neither shown that the revised report filed was incorrect or that the assessee not applied its income for charitable or religious purposes - thus, the order of the CIT(A) is upheld – Decided against Revenue.
Deletion of disallowance of pooja expenses – Held that:- The disallowance will not survive once the assessee’s claim for exemption u/s 11 is allowed - even otherwise, there is no case for the disallowance because once the income from the pooja activity is included, the connected expenditure is to be allowed - the order of the CIT(A) is upheld – Decided against Revenue.
Addition u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act – Held that:- The disallowance will not survive once the assessee's claim for exemption u/s 11 is allowed - even otherwise, the disallowance was made without affording an opportunity to the assessee to rebut the assumption of the AO that the items of expenditure comprised in the amount are liable for disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia).
Disallowance out of Administration expenses – Held that:- The disallowance will not survive once the assessee's claim for exemption u/s l1 is allowed - there is no case for separate disallowance because expenditure debited by the assessee is normal administrative expenditure and there is no finding that such expenditure was not incurred or that the same was not vouched etc. – the order of the CIT(A) is upheld – Decided against Revenue.
-
2014 (6) TMI 805 - ITAT COCHIN
Allowability of deduction u/s 10A - AO rejected the claim for deduction u/s. 10B – Before the first appellate authority, the assessee put an alternative claim, viz., the deduction under sec. 10A - Software Technology Parks of India (STPI) - approval was not granted by a proper authority u/s. 14 of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act certifying the assessee as 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) - Held that:- Following The Income Tax Officer Versus M/s. Device Driven (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2013 (12) TMI 477 - ITAT COCHIN] - the alternative claim made by the assessee claiming deduction u/s 10A should be considered by the tax authorities - the claim requires examination of the eligibility of the assessee to claim the same and further it requires to be seen as to whether the assessee has complied with the procedures prescribed u/s 10A of the Act – thus, the order of the CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the AO for examination of the claim for deduction u/s 10A of the Act – Decided in favour of Assessee.
-
2014 (6) TMI 804 - ITAT COCHIN
Unexplained income u/s 69 of the Act - Peak credit balance – Held that:- The AO has accepted the contentions of the assessee that the past withdrawals might have been used for making future deposits - the AO has computed peak credit of the bank account and determined that the balance available in the bank account as on 09.11.2004, i.e. Rs.12,73,150/- is the peak amount and assessed the same - the assessee has been declaring income from job works over the years and it is stated that the assessee has not maintained regular books of account for this business - The possibility of making savings out of job works business cannot be altogether ruled out - the AO has assessed the “peak credit amount” shows that he has also accepted the theory of human probabilities, i.e., the AO has accepted the fact that the past withdrawals were utilised to make future deposits, which is a normal human behavior.
The claim of the assessee that he has used the withdrawals made in the FY 2003-04 also for making deposits in the FY 2004-05 should be accepted - the claim that he was having savings out of his past income could not also be ruled out - the claim that the gold stock was converted into cash and then reconverted into gold stock is hard to believe - assessee may be given credit for the claim of past savings and for withdrawals made from the bank account in the FY 2003-04 - if the amount available with the assessee as on 1.4.2004 out of past savings and also from out of bank withdrawals made in FY 2003-04 is estimated at Rs.6.00 lakhs - the AO is allowed credit of Rs.6.00 lakhs and assess the balance amount u/s 69 of the Act – thus, the order of the CIT(A) is modified – Decided partly in favour of Assessee.
-
2014 (6) TMI 803 - ITAT MUMBAI
Treatment of income earned from sub-letting of business service center – Income from other sources or business income – Held that:- the fact that the assessee running the business centre by exploiting the property is not merely an activity of letting out the property and the fact that the assessee has been showing the rent received from letting out the business centre under the head business income continuously since 1984, we are of the considered view that the authorities below are not justified in treating the impugned receipts under the head income from other sources. - AO directed to treat the impugned receipts in both the assessment years under the head business income as claimed by the assessee. - Decided in favor of assessee.
The details of expenditure incurred by the assessee reveals that the expenses are for keeping the premises alive for earning the income from legitimate business of activity of renting - the legal fees expense claimed by the assessee is for the purpose of safeguarding the company’s tenanted properties - the income received from the business centre has to be treated as business income in pursuance of the adjudication and the fact that the expenditures have nexus with the business income, the expenditures claimed by the assessee have also to be allowed as business expenditure – the AO is directed to allow the expenditure claimed by the assessee – Decided in favour of Assessee.
-
2014 (6) TMI 802 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Additional deprecation - whether embroidery work earned on embroidery machines is manufacturing activity or not - installation of embroidery machines – Held that:- Since the issue has been decided by Hon'ble ITAT Ahmedabad Bench in several cases in favour of the assessee including the decision, no interference is required - Decision in the case of ITO vs. Aswani Industries [2014 (6) TMI 560 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] followed - Revenue has not brought any contrary binding decision in its support of the facts - assessee is eligible for additional depreciation – Decided in favour of Assessee.
-
2014 (6) TMI 801 - ITAT MUMBAI
Accrual of income - Addition of advance received before commencement of professional work – It was contended by the Ld. Counsel that since the matter before the SEBI was taken up only in 2009 and the proceedings before the SEBI concluded by its order dt. 23.4.2010, the assessee booked the advance received ₹ 12 lakhs as income for financial year 2009-10 pertaining to A.Y. 2010-11 - Held that:- The AO has not considered the chronological events of the case - AO has simply added ₹ 12 lakhs on the belief that no client would give money to an Advocate unless some work is done by that Advocate - CIT(A) has confirmed the addition stating that the AO has doubted the genuineness of the evidence filed before him – the issue needs re-adjudication at the assessment level – thus, the matter is required to be remitted back to the AO for adjudication - assessee is directed to file the details of chronological events which took place before the SEBI alongwith confirmations from the parties – Decided in favour of Asssessee.
-
2014 (6) TMI 780 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Rectification of mistake - Determination of cost of land – Any expenses relating to allotment of land not debited – Held that:- The expenses reflected in Schedule-K are in the nature of stamp duty, registration fee incurred for registration of title deed and bank guarantee commission - This does not tantamount to incurring of any expenditure towards allotment of land by the Government - the assessee has offered the gross amount on sale of land/ building/IT Park as revenue receipt for taxation purposes and there is no deduction of land cost from it, taxing the cost of the land once again amounts to double taxation - if the assessee is not charging cost of land to the Profit and Loss A/c. and offered the receipt from sale of land/building/IT Park as revenue receipt, then the claim of the assessee could be allowed – the AO is directed to verify whether the assessee has charged any cost incurred for allotment of land in its books of account as an expenditure and if it is not charged any expenditure towards allotment of land to Profit and Loss A/c., then the claim of the assessee is to be allowed - Decided in favour of Assessee.
............
|
