It is contended by the learned counsel that the sum of Rs. 16 lakhs added by the Assessing Officer as undisclosed income has already been offered as income by the assessee by way of forfeiture of booking advance.
The undisputed facts are that the assessee was to receive the sum of 74,30,575/- from CCIL towards crane hire charges. However, actually, the assessee could receive only 58,39,011/-. The Revenue has not disputed the correctness of the assessee’s contention that it could not recover the sum of Rs. 16,66,081/-.
We find that a clear finding was given by the Assessing Officer in para 13.2 of the assessment order in the case of Shri Pranbhai S Fultaria that assessee has not filed any return of income though specifically required u/s. 142(1) of the Act and assessee has not maintained books of account. Ld. CIT(A) has not given a finding that this observation of the AO in para-13.2 of the assessment order is incorrect that assessee is not maintaining any books of account.
The only addition made in the hands of both the above minor children of Shri Kamal Piyush was the protective addition of 2,51,000/- which was added on substantive basis in the hands of Shri Kamal Piyush.
When the value declared by the assessee as on 01.04. 1981 is supported by valuation report of a registered valuer and the A.O. has taken different valuation without obtaining valuation report from the DVO
The object of giving relief to an assessee by allowing indexation is with a view to offset the effect of inflation. As per the CBDT Circular No. 636 dt. 31st Aug., 1992 a fair method of allowing relief by way of indexation is to link it to the period of holding the asset.
In combined result, one appeal of assessee in ITA No. 1800/Ahd/2008 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the remaining six appeals of Revenue in the case of three assessees are dismissed and all 16 COs of the three assessees are also dismissed.
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.
