The fact of actual sale consideration received by the assessee has not been disputed by the Assessing Officer but the addition was made simply by applying the deeming provisions of section 50C. Therefore, in view of the various decisions as relied upon by the Ld. Authorized Representative as well as by the CIT(A), we do not find any error in the impugned order of CIT(A) in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c).
Addition, made solely on the basis of AIR information, especially in the absence of full details of parties and when the professional receipts declared by the assessee far exceeds than the amount mentioned in the AIR information, is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
It has been held time and again by this Tribunal that the additions made solely on the basis of AIR information are not sustainable in the eyes of the If the assessee denies that he is in receipt of income from a particular source, it is for the AO to prove that the assessee has received income as the assessee cannot prove the negative.
DR strongly supported the order of the AO that prima facie, the basis of addition was the statement of the survyed parties wherein it was accepted that they were providing accommodation transaction, and therefore the entries recorded were sham.
Smt. Rajneet Sandhu vs. DCIT (2010) 133 TTJ 0064 (Chandigarh): In this case the construction of the house was not completed within the prescribed period. It was held that section 54F does not prescribe that the residential house should be completed within the prescribed period and benefit under s. 54F was allowed.
Entire case of the Assessing Officer rests on Explanation (ii) to section 80IB(10)(a) of the Act which prescribes that the date of completion of construction of the housing project shall be taken to be the date on which the completion certificate in respect of such housing project is issued by the local authority.
when the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court has admitted substantial question of law on the addition, it becomes apparent that the addition so made has become debatable. The penalty was imposed on the basis of addition so made, therefore, when the addition on the basis of which the penalty was imposed has become doubtful/debatable, therefore, penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot survive.
Section 194C of the I.T. Act provide that any person responsible for paying any sum to any resident for carrying out any work (including supply of labour) for carrying out any work, in pursuance of a contract between the contractor and a specified person, shall, at the time of credit of such sum to the account of the contractor
On the issue of share premium money and unsecured loan, the Commissioner held that the order of the Assessing Officer suffers from several defects as the Assessing Officer has not raised any question while recording the statement with respect to the credentials of the applicant companies
In further held that Once the assessee has been found to have made a business investment by way, of shares in related line of business, the said investment though held by way of shares in the said company cannot be subjected to disallowance under section 14A of the Act
