Thus obviously, it is only on account of deeming provisions of section 50C, the AO has made the addition by adopting the sale consideration of Rs.5, 19,77,000/-, being the value adopted for the purpose of stamp valuation. The revenue has also not shown as to how the assessee could be held to have actually received this amount which is in excess of the amount of Rs.2,51,50,000/-.
In the result, we hold that the petitioner is entitled to be paid interest @ 12% in respect of the amount of Rs. 6,33,800/- for the period from 27.12.2006 to 24.05.2011 and a writ of mandamus directing the payment of the interest is accordingly issued. The respondent shall pay the interest within a period of six weeks from today. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs.
Learned counsel for the Revenue stated that said decision of this Court was not carried in appeal on the ground that it involved tax effect lower than what is prescribed by the CBDT in circular dated 9.2.2011 permitting the Revenue to carry such appeal before the Supreme Court. Counsel for the Revenue was unable to point out any factual distinction between the two cases.
All Tax Appeals are allowed. Decisions of the Tribunal under challenge are reversed. In the earlier portion of the judgment, we had recorded that the Tribunal in all cases had proceeded only on this short basis without addressing other issues. We, therefore, place all these matters back before the Tribunal for fresh consideration of other issues, if any, regarding disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. All appeals are disposed of accordingly.
The issue pertains to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short). The revenue authorities had imposed penalty on the ground that deduction under section 80HHC of the Act was wrongly claimed. The Tribunal however, deleted such penalty. The Tribunal noted that tax liability against the assessee was confirmed on the basis of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Ravindranathan Nair, 295 ITR 228. The Tribunal noted that such decision was not available when the assessee filed the return. On such basis, the Tribunal was prompted to delete the penalty.
In our view, merely because the suppliers have not appeared before the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A), one cannot conclude that the purchases were not made by the respondent-assessee.
It is also pointed out that the Tribunal is delaying the matters of the petitioner or passing unreasoned orders or by totalling ignoring him. It is also pointed out that respondent No.2 was transferred out of Amritsar on a representation submitted by the petitioner but after one year respondent No.2 has been again posted as a Judicial Member of Amritsar Tribunal. The petitioner claims that the Members are totally prejudice against the petitioner on account of his having made a complaint against respondent No.2 to the President.
Facts :- learned Assessing Officer found that the assessee paid interest to the Banks amounting to Rs.13,64,522/- and has availed loans to the extent of Rs.60,22,364/- including secured loans of Rs.47,63,761/- from Punjab & Sind Bank and Rs.8,59,298/- from Andhra Bank.
Search operation was carried out in one M/s. G.B. & Company under section 132. Though the premises of the assessee were also searched during search operations, the same were in the capacity of an employee of the said company and not in individual capacity.
It has been held that the right to receive retention money accrues only after the obligations under the contract are fulfilled. Therefore, it will not amount to income of the assessee in the year in which amount is retained.
