Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Srinivasan Athamanathan Iyer Versus The ACIT Circle-3, Vadodara

2017 (6) TMI 344 - ITAT AHMEDABAD

Addition on account of difference between 26-AS & return of income - Held that:- We take notice of the persistent claim of the assessee that the differential receipt of ₹ 15,24,175/- has been duly and correctly recorded in the hands of the Pvt.Ltd.Co. which has ultimately taken over the business of the present assessee. If that is so, the department ought to have taxed the receipt in the hands of one person who is rightful and legitimate claimant of the receipt. We find that the CIT(A) is .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

l receipts in question. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. - Claim towards purported cost of improvement disallowed - computation of capital gains - Held that:- We find that in support of the cost of improvement so claimed, the assessee has failed to adduce any proper evidence. The assessee has only relied on its claim on the basis of two loans of ₹ 3 lacs and ₹ 1,98,000/- as noted above. However, there is no evidence on record to establish that the aforesa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of the expenditure toward cost of improvements. - Decided against assessee. - I.T.A. No.3445/Ahd/2015 - Dated:- 1-6-2017 - SHRI R.P. TOLANI, VICE PRESIDENT, AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri Anuj Kumar Tiwari, AR For The Respondent : Shri K. Madhusudan, Sr.DR ORDER PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, AM: The captioned appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-5, Vadodara [CIT(A) in short] dated 08/09/2015 for the As .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ility of documents. The assessee has taken a loan for the purpose of improvement. Therefore it is prayed that cost of improvement should be allowed at least up to the amount of loan taken. 3. The brief facts concerning Ground No.1 is that the assessee was running proprietorship under the name and style of Balaji Engineering Construction Company. During the relevant assessment year 2011-12 (FY 2010-11), the aforesaid proprietorship business was taken over by a Private Limited Company, namely; Upp .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

g receipts belonging to the assessee as per 26-AS statement. The difference between the receipts as shown in the financial statements qua 26AS statement amounting to ₹ 15,24,175/- was eventually taken as suppressed sales of the assessee and accordingly added to the total income of the assessee. 4. The assessee approached the CIT(A) seeking relief against the impugned additions. The CIT(A) however, declined to grant any relief on the ground that while TDS has been claimed in the hands of th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the financial statement as compared to Statement - 26-AS is on account of mistake made by the parties while putting quoting PAN of proprietary-concern incorrectly owing to confusion prevailing due to take over of proprietorship concern by the Pvt.Ltd.Co. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee has time and again pointed out before the lower authorities that the aforesaid receipts have been included in the return of income of the Pvt.Ltd.Co. Thus, the aforesaid receipts have already been subjected .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

al submissions. The issue in dispute is additions on account of mismatch in the receipts between the financial statements and the receipts recorded in 26-AS statement generated under the Permanent Account Number (PAN) of the assessee. We take notice of the persistent claim of the assessee that the differential receipt of ₹ 15,24,175/- has been duly and correctly recorded in the hands of the Pvt.Ltd.Co. which has ultimately taken over the business of the present assessee. If that is so, the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cern has been taken over by the Pvt.Ltd.Co. Therefore, there exists plausible circumstances for prevailing confusion in quoting wrong PAN while deducting TDS by the outside parties who have sourced the differential receipts. Under the circumstances, we consider it just and expedient to remitting the matter back to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication of the issue in accordance with law after examining the attendant facts for rightful taxation of differential receipts in question. The asse .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

determining the cost of purchase of immovable property for the purposes of computation of capital gains on its sale. The relevant facts concerning the aforesaid issue is that the assessee sold a residential house property on 28/03/2011 for a consideration of ₹ 30 lakhs. The assessee inter alia claimed cost of improvement of ₹ 8,88,704/- in tandem with the cost of purchase for determining the capital gains on sale. The impugned cost of improvement was rejected by the AO and consequent .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version