In his first fold of submission, he contended that assessee has sufficient interest free funds available which were used for the purpose of giving interest free advances, therefore, ld. Assessing Officer ought to have not disallowed any amount out of the interest expenses claimed on the borrowed funds.
Assessing officer has made few additions in his assessment order which were later on deleted by the CIT (A) on merits. Revenue preferred an appeal to the Tribunal against an order of CIT(A). However in this case the tax effect was less than Rs 4 lacs.
Brief Facts:Assessee, an individual,proprietor of M/s. Hydro Pure System,is engaged in the business of installation,erection and servicing of water purifying systems.He is deriving income from business and other sources. He filed his return of income on 28.9.10,declaring total income of Rs.18.40 lacs .
The assessee submitted that the retention money which was payable after expiry of plant performance guarantee period is over, did not accrue to it on the supply of plant / equipment, hence the same cannot be considered as income of the assessee as the amount did not accrue or become due at that time.
1. The assessee is an individual, who earned rental income from certain properties and claimed deduction for interest on loan paid by the assessee as interest u/s 24(b)of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The A.O., on perusal of interest certificate given by the bank, noticed that out the total interest of Rs. 29,89,223/-
By plain reading the words ‘any other business or commercial rights of similar nature’ in clause (b) of Explanation 3 to section 32 indicates that goodwill would fall under the expression ‘any other business or commercial right of a similar nature’.
For the purpose of limit prescribed in section 10(23C)(iiiad), Rs. One crore limit has to be considered for each institution separately and not for the assessee as a whole. This is very important to mention that as per section 10(23C)(iiiad) also, the term used is any university or other educational institution
The reliance has been placed on the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s MT Builders Pvt. Ltd., (2012) 349 R 271 (All.) that the notice issued by an Officer who had no valid jurisdiction over the assessee is invalid. Accordingly, The notice under Section 148 of the Act issued by the Income Tax Officer
These are the appeals filed by revenue against which assessee also filed cross-objection relevant to three AYs. In these cases ITAT examined various issues and held that capital gain on transfer of land held as stock-in-trade can be made only in the year in which stock-in-trade was sold and not in year in which agreement was made.
In the assessment proceedings, the Assessee submitted before the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the AO) that an amount of Rs. 14,50,000/- received on surrender of transferable development rights (TDR) from the builder through the co-operative society was wrongly declared as income from capital gains as the same was exempt in the hands of the Assessee.
