Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be fully migrated on 31-July-2025 at 23:59:59
After this date, all services will be available exclusively on our new platform.
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please let us know
via our feedback form
, with specific details, so we can address them promptly.
Home
2016 (3) TMI 1221 - AT - Income TaxAddition on account of unexplained cost of construction of resort - Held that - Nothing specific have been explained as to how Assessing Officer made the above additions against the assessee. The Assessing Officer without any justification or cause did not place reliance upon the report of the DVO which is binding on the Assessing Officer. Since reference is made by the Assessing Officer to the DVO therefore Assessing Officer was bound to adopt valuation disclosed by the DVO in his report. However the Assessing Officer merely placed reliance upon seized document which did not disclose specifically the quantum of cost of construction invested by the assessee in the resort. Therefore the finding of the DVO in the valuation report that most of the papers are dumb documents is relevant and admissible. The report of the DVO clearly shows that no investments in construction have been made in assessment year 2005-06. In assessment year 2006-07 we are of the view that since there is not much difference between the cost of construction reported by the DVO and disclosed by the assessee in the books of account of assessment year 2007-08 therefore no addition can be made against the assessee even in the remaining assessment years 2006-08 and 2007-08. - Decided in favour of assessee Addition on account of accretion in capital account of partners - Held that - Since in this case the partners of the assessee firm have admitted their capital contribution in their accounts therefore no addition could be made in the hands of the assessee firm.We accordingly set aside the orders of authorities below and delete both the additions. See case of Metachem Industries 1999 (9) TMI 21 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court - Decided in favour of assessee Addition as income from business - Held that - No specific arguments or material have been pointed out to show that how this addition is unjustified. The Assessing Officer noted certain functions have been organized during assessment year under appeal in the premises of the assessee and the assessee in their statement also admitted arranging such functions. The Assessing Officer found certain credit entries in the bank account of the assessee. Wherever assessee was able to explain the entries no adverse view was taken by the Assessing Officer. However rest of the addition of amount of Rs. 2, 33, 147/- no explanation was filed before Assessing Officer. Therefore Assessing Officer treated the same to be income of the assessee. In the absence of any evidence or material on record we do not find any justification to interfere with the order of the authorities below. - Decided against assessee.
|