Receipt of grant from US Aid through ICICI to create an institutional environment for technological innovations could not be regarded as meeting of cost of specific asset by Central Government or State Government or any authority established by any law in India or any other person, so as to cause Explanation 10 to section 43(1) get attracted to assessee’s case.
Receipts towards amenities are to be considered as part of rental income. However, the expenses incurred towards security service and pantry services are not connected to the rental income and hence, they should be deducted from the receipts from amenities.
Moreover, if the action of the AO is confirmed the assessee will be claiming additional deduction u/s 24 @ 30% in addition to the business and administrative expenses as the assessee is in the real estate business and the income of the assessee will be assessed lower than the returned income.
Where there was estimation of business income, disallowance and consequential addition of revenue expenditure was not sustainable, in view of decision in Indwell Constructions v. CIT (1998) 232 ITR 776 (AP-HC). Since AO already had made estimation of income at 5% after rejection of books of account of assessee, no further disallowance of business expenditure could be made by AO.
A reassessment order cannot be passed without compliance with the mandatory requirement of notice u/s 143(2) being issued as the requirement of issuance of such notice is a jurisdictional one and section 292BB cannot cure jurisdictional error.
ACIT (Exemptions) Vs. Andhra Cricket Association (ITAT Vishakhapatnam) The assessee is receiving grants from BCCI partly as reimbursements for various tournaments conducted by the assessee. The assessee has already constructed a stadium at Visakhapatnam suitable for conducting ‘test matches‘. During the year under consideration, the assessee has also commenced construction of stadiums at various places […]
ACIT Vs Shri Dilip Ranjrekar (ITAT Bangalore) It was held that despite the non completion of the construction of the new property by the builder, the assessee would be entitled to the benefit of exemption u/s 54 of the Act. We have heard the rival contentions and perused and carefully considered the material on record. It […]
Though the amount was credited to her account in the books of accounts of the assessee, the payment was not made to her and before making the payment and filing the return of income, the assessee had obtained the form 15G and forwarded to the Ld. CIT. Since the recipient was not having taxable income, obtaining form 15G before making the payment would be sufficient compliance and hence, we hold that the addition u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act does not attract.
ITA No. 202/Hyd/2015 is the appeal filed by M/s. Sree Nagendra Constructions for the assessment year 2011-12, while ITA No. 167/Hyd/2015 is the appeal filed by the Revenue against the relief granted to M/s. Sree Nagendra Constructions for the assessment year 2009-10.
It was urged that the letting out of space to Infosys BPO Ltd. and BSNL at Chennai were therefore incidental to the business carried on by the assessee and therefore eligible for deduction under Section 10A of the Act.
