TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1152X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e from other sources - Held that:- CIT(A) has raised the issue with regard to the ownership of the property and held that the property was owned by the firm therefore, on account of the sale of the said property the CIT(A) has treated the sale proceed as income from other sources. Anyhow, this issue has not been properly adjudicated on the basis of the ownership of the property. Utilization of land and sale of land is quite different. Accordingly the income of assessee is required to be assessed. It is not a case of double taxation when the income of the assessee was assessed on the basis of utilization and sale of land. Since the matter of controversy has not been adjudicated by the CIT(A) on the basis title, therefore, we set aside the fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A. Disallowance of under section 14A - Rs. 1,32,944/- 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Ld. A.O. in making disallowance of Rs. 1,32,944/- under section 14A of the Act by invoking the provisions of Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules, 1962. The Appellant, therefore, prays that disallowance of Rs. 1,32,944/- under section 14A r.w.Rule 8D is not justified and hence, the same may be deleted. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Ld. A.O. has not given any reasons why he considers that Appellant has incurred expenditure to earn exempt income over and above Rs. 2,65,068/-. Thus, the provision of Rules 8D are not applicable. Hence, the disallowance of ₹ 1,32,944/- is not justified. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice u/s.142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire was issued and served upon the assessee. The Assessing Officer assessed the expenditure to earn the exempt income to the tune of ₹ 3,98,012/- whereas the assessee disallowed the expenditure to the tune of ₹ 2,65,068 and added the difference to the tune of ₹ 1,32,944 to the income of assessee and also assessed the income from other sources on account of sale of piece of land by the assessee but the assessee was not satisfied, therefore an appeal was filed before CIT(A) who confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer, therefore the assessee filed the present appeal before us. ISSUE NO.1 TO 4:- 4. Under this issue the assessee has challenged the disallowance of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the other provisions of the section 14A read with Rule 8D of the act. On appraisal of the order passed by the Assessing Officer we found nothing ambiguity for the application of the Rule 8D of the Act for calculation of the expenses to earn the exempt income. The Assessing Officer has assessed the expenditure in view of the facts and circumstances of the case wherein no specific expenditure has been shown to be explained to earn exempt income. Therefore, in the said circumstances the CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer on this issue which does not require to be interfere with at this appellate stage. ISSUE NO.5 6:- 5. The assessee has challenged the addition of income from other sources to the tune o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant, the question of capital gains in the hand of the appellant does not arise. The above facts clearly prove that the asset belong to the firm and not to the appellant. Therefore, the capital gain cannot be assessed in the hand of the appellant. However, since the amount has been credited in the books of the appellant, this is undoubtedly income in his hands. It is not a case where capital gain is offered in the hands of the firm by filing a revised return. Thus, it is not a case of double taxation. The gain/income has to be taxed at some place either in the case of firm or in the case of appellant. As no income has been offered in case of firm M/s.Ashok L .Shah, this income is rightly taxed by the Assessing Officer in the hands of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ners have no right of any kind on this property. The CIT(A) has raised the issue with regard to the ownership of the property and held that the property was owned by the firm therefore, on account of the sale of the said property the CIT(A) has treated the sale proceed as income from other sources. Anyhow, this issue has not been properly adjudicated on the basis of the ownership of the property. Utilization of land and sale of land is quite different. Accordingly the income of assessee is required to be assessed. It is not a case of double taxation when the income of the assessee was assessed on the basis of utilization and sale of land. Since the matter of controversy has not been adjudicated by the CIT(A) on the basis title, therefore, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
