A perusal of the provisions of section 80IA(4) of the Act shows that in the explanation ‘infrastructure facility’ has been specified to mean a road including a toll road, a bridge or a rail system. Admittedly, the assessee is doing the business of development of railway tracks and bridges thereof as also roads.
In the return of income, the assessee had claimed deduction under section 54F of the Act. During the course of assessment, the assessee disclosed that apart from property purchased at Kodaikanal for Rs. 1,14,88,000/-
Merely because a claim (per the return of income) is a legal claim, or has a legal aspect to it – which would be in each case – the same by itself cannot be a cause for non levy of penalty in every case, as where there is no valid basis for the same (i.e., the legal claim).
In our opinion, the amount representing 2118.84 is towards investment in share capital of the subsidiaries outside India as the transactions are not in the nature of transactions referred to section 92-B of the IT Act and the transfer pricing provisions are not applicable as there is no income.
Once the CBDT has issued instructions for assumption of jurisdiction for selection of cases of corporate assesses for scrutiny and assessment thereof, the same have to be followed in letter and spirit by the AO .
The Mumbai Bench found that short deduction of TDS, if any, could have been considered as liability under the Income-tax Act as due from the assessee. Therefore, the disallowance of the entire expenditure, whose genuineness was not doubted by the assessing officer is not justified. A similar view was also taken by the Kokatta Bench of this Tribunal in the case of CIT vs M/s S.K. Tekriwal (supra).
For condonation of delay, two questions are required to be seen (i) whether there is sufficient cause and it depends from case to case whether in given circumstances, sufficient cause has been established or not? (ii) Whether the law of limitation has to be enforced or the question of limitation should be taken only as a mere formality.
The assessee before execution of the sale deed purchased the properties vide document No. 8547/2008 on 18.09.2008 for Rs. 47,53,223/-, document No. 8743/2008 on 04.10.2008 for Rs. 51,47,014/- and document No. 8295/2008 on 24.09.2008 for Rs. 28,68,302/-
We have carefully considered the submissions and perused the records. We find that the value of the property in this case as reflected in the registered sale deed was Rs. 55,00,000/-. Reference u/s. 142A was made to the DVO by the Assessing Officer.
In this case Assessing Officer noted that from the perusal of the balance sheet and Annexures it was noted that the assessee has taken loans from banks, amounting to RS. 8,32,93,610/- in the form of secured loan and also from other parties, amounting to Rs. 56,20,479/-
