Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Shri M. Sathyanarayana Prop. Kodandarama Wines Versus Income-Tax Officer

2016 (2) TMI 46 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

Assessment of rental income - individual v/s HUF status - ITAT held that the rental income is to be assessed in the hands of appellant-individual just because the PAN number of the appellant-individual has been indicated instead of PAN of HUF in the TDS certificate given by the Tenant, on the facts and circumstance of the case - Held that:- It is clear that the income from the property bearing No.58, Bommasandra, Bangalore was declared by the assessee as income of HUF for the previous assessment .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed the PAN number (individual) of the assessee in the rental agreement due to some inadvertence, it would not change the status of the assessee/appellant. In such view of the matter, it requires detailed examination of the PAN numbers of the assessee in the context of the PAN number mentioned in the agreement said to have been disclosed by the tenant of the assessee. It is based on the rental agreement, the departmental authorities have proceeded to treat the assessee in the status of an individ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

aside the order passed by the ITAT as well as the authorities and remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer to examine the issue afresh in accordance with law and to pass fresh assessment order as expeditiously as possible after providing an opportunity of hearing to the parties. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 63/2010 - Dated:- 21-1-2016 - N. K. Patil And S. Sujatha, JJ. For the Appellants : Sri A Shankar & Sri M Lava Advs For the Respondent : Sri K V Aravind, Adv JUDGMENT .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he return of income filed by the appellant/assessee was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was concluded under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) on 31.12.2007. The Assessing Officer added an amount of ₹ 1,51,200/- as income from house property and ₹ 2,30,000/- towards long term capital gains. The appellant being aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) -A, Bangalore. The Fi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

dual just because the PAN number of the appellant-individual has been indicated instead of PAN of HUF in the TDS certificate given by the Tenant, on the facts and circumstance of the case. 2. Whether the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the rental income is liable to be assessed in the hands of the appellant on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Without prejudice whether the Tribunal was justified in law in permitting double taxation of the same income both in individual and .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ned counsel placing reliance on Section 2(31) of the Act submits that HUF is a person for the purposes of assessment under the Act and as such assessing the rental income belonging to the HUF in the individual status is not justifiable, when the returns of the previous years and the subsequent years have been accepted in the status of HUF. It is further contended the whole confusion was crept in on the wrong mentioning of the PAN number of the assessee by the tenant in the rental agreement and t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

under the income tax proceedings. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the revenue supports the order and contends that mere filing of the return and the same being accepted by the departmental authorities without proper adjudication would not qualify the assessee to claim the status of HUF. The ITAT after properly considering the material on record has held that the property in question belongs to the assessee as individual and not as the HUF, supported by the possession certific .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version