The facts, in brief, are that during the year the assessee sold a shop for Rs.18 lacs on 17.1.2005 and declared sale price while working out the capital gain and investment in construction of a residential house.
In view of our decision in respect of additional ground no.3, other issues raised by the assessee by way of additional grounds and original grounds as per the memo of appeal do not call for any adjudication at this stage, because after deciding the technical aspect, the learned CIT(A) has to decide the entire issues again.
During the period, when FBT was applicable, appellant considered reimbursements to employees under holiday home scheme to be liable to FBT under section 11 5WB(2)(G), i.e. expenditure for use of hotel, boarding and lodging facilities.
In view of the fact that the enabling conditions of sec.41(1) are not fulfilled in this case, the A.0. had not brought any material on record to indicate that the appellant had obtained any benefit against the above said liabilities and these liabilities are still existing at the end of relevant assessment year in the books of accounts of the appellant, I am inclined to agree with the contentions of the Ld. A.R. Accordingly, addition of Rs. 1,36,76,461/- made by the A. 0. u/s 41(1) is ordered to be deleted. This ground of appeal is allowed.
The decisions by the apex court in the case of Vinay Cement Ltd. (supra) and Alom Extrusions Ltd. (supra) are admittedly with reference to section 43B and, further, qua the scope of the amendments thereto. The deductibility of the employee’s contribution is not regulated by section 43B.
Ground no.2 about the deduction in respect of property tax amounting to Rs. 2.03 lakh and ground no.3 against the confirmation of disallowance of Rs. 3,96,243 being various expenses incurred against the house property income were not pressed by the learned AR. Both these grounds stand dismissed.
Having heard the submissions of both the sides and on due consideration of the facts of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the transaction in respect of the share trading was duly disclosed at the time of filing of the return. Some of the income was shown as long-tern capital gain and part of the income was also shown as speculative business in shares/scripts trading.
We find that the AO has made disallowance on the basis of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, but no disallowance can be made or sustained in excess of the expenses debited in the profit & loss account.
We find that the AO has not claimed that Shri Devang Shah, CA was authorised to receive any notice on behalf of the assessee-firm or was the representative of the assessee or that any power of attorney was executed by the assessee firm in favour of the said Chartered Accountant.
In the present set of facts, we have noted that the AO had considered the impugned repair expenditure as annual rent in the hands of the assessee which was without any basis. As far as the assessee was concerned, the deduction @ 30% is like a standard deduction as prescribed u/s.24(a) of IT Act, not necessarily incurred towards repairs of the house property as held in the case of JB Patel & Co. 118 ITD 556.
