A copy of the irrevocable GPA executed in terms of paragraph 15 of the agreement has been furnished by the applicant. It authorizes the developer : (i) to enter upon and survey the land, prepare the layout plan, apply for renewal/extension of licence, submit the building plans for sanction of the appropriate authority and to carry out the work of development of a multi-storied residential complex,
Addition u/s 68 of the Act was made by the Assessing Officer when the assessee himself offered to include this amount in his total income and consented to pay the tax. Another addition of Rs. 1 lakh was also made when the assessee voluntarily preferred to include Rs. 1 lakh to his total income.
In the instant case, it is an undisputed fact that the assessee has not maintained any books of account and whatever credit entries are found by the Assessing Officer, it was from the bank accounts of the assessee in which deposits were made at different point of time.
Facts apropos are that assessee, a firm of Chartered Accountants, filed its return for impugned assessment year on 30th September, 2008, declaring a total income of ~ 17,70,69,972/-. The assessment was completed on 31st December, 2010 under Section 143(3) of the Act
Contention of the Assessee :- The alleged Pen drive is not an admissible evidence, therefore the recording of reasons and consequent 148 proceedings based on the reasons of such unreliable evidence are bad in law.
Explore the ITAT Kolkata ruling in DCIT vs Ashok Walia case for assessment year 2009-10. Key issues include return filing date and admission of additional evidence.
The dispute is regarding allowability of exemption under section 54 of the Act and computation of long term capital gain in respect of exchange of old flat with a new flat and cash compensation under development agreement with the builder.
In the present case, though the assessee was to receive monthly alimony which was to be taxable in the each year from conclusion of divorce agreement but in this case monthly payments were not received and, therefore, were not offered tax.
The arm’s length result under the TNMM is determined to the net profit margin of a comparable transactions under a comparable circumstances and the profitability derived from uncontrolled party engaged in similar business activity under similar circumstances are to be analysed.
Here in the present case, there is no linkage or nexus between the funds borrowed by assessee and the impugned investments, hence, no interest expenditure can be disallowed by mechanically applying the Provisions of Rule 8D of the Rules.
