While recording of the reasons to reopen an assessment, AO was required to form only prima Facie opinions about escapement of income as he was not making an assessment but taking a first baby step for making the assessment by forming a reasonable belief that whether the claim of assessee should be tested in reassessment proceedings or not. Thus, there was no infirmity in the action of AO that reasoned escapement of income by claiming deduction of Rs. 1 crore u/s 54EC.
Revenue ought to have brought evidence on record by bringing comparative quotations to prove the fact that the lease rent paid in the sum of Rs. 2 lakhs per month to the trustees was excessive or unreasonable and beyond the fair market value thereon. Since ssessee placed on record that the market value of the land was Rs.13,03,76,400/- as per the registered lease deed and the payment of lease rent of Rs.24 lakhs works out to hardly 1.86% thereon. Hence, it could be safely concluded that the rent paid by assessee-trust to the trustees was not excessive or unreasonable.
everting to the CUP method applied by assessee as the most appropriate method for benchmarking the SDT of rent payment, assessee had given a comparable instance of rent paid @ Rs.112 per sq.ft. by ICICI bank under a lease agreement dated 17.02.2012 for a nearby premises. As against that, the assessee paid rent @ Rs.75.28 per sq.ft., which showed that the rent paid by assessee was less in comparison with the comparable uncontrolled transaction. Thus, the ALP of the Specified Domestic Tranasction of payment of rent could not be disputed.
ACIT Vs Remi Electrotechnik Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on estimate basis without any evidence on record with regard to concealment of income. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable to be imposed only where the assessee has concealed its particulars of income or furnished […]
DCIT Vs Toshvin Analytical Private Limited (ITAT Mumbai) As per facts recorded above, the penalty in this case is only with reference to addition on bogus purchases amounting to Rs.3,83,388/-. The addition was sustained by the ITAT @8% of the bogus purchases. We find that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. […]
Ekta Housing Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai): Conclusion: Addition as regards the on-money received by assessee was to be made to the extent of the income element embedded in such receipts and the entire amount of on-money could not have been added in the hands of the assessee. No reason or logic had been […]
Dheeraj Thakran Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Conclusion: Since the gifts in the instant case were received from parents, brother and spouse, respectively and the father had withdrawn substantial cash amount from the bank before giving the gift on various dates to his son and the gifts from brother, from mother and from spouse were not […]
ACIT Vs CMG Steels Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Chennai) Facts already disclosed in return of income cannot constitute incriminating material found during search. Also held cross examination importance when requested without which addition becomes invalid In the present case, on perusal of facts available on record, we find that the AO has made additions towards unsecured […]
Kimiyoshi Muto Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) The case of the assessee was re-opened under Section 147 of the Act on the ground that the assessee has shown perquisite under rent-free accommodation by considering only the Indian salary whereas, according to the Assessing Officer, he was required to compute perquisite value of rent-free accommodation by including […]
Onus was on Revenue to show that the incriminating material/documents recovered at the time of search ‘belongs’ to the Assessee, in other words, it was not enough for the Revenue to show that the documents either ‘pertain’ to the Assessee or contains information that ‘relates to the Assessee.
