As for the excess area constructed, as rightly held by the learned CIT(A), it is for the BBMP to look into the violations if any in the construction of the housing project. That however does not authorize the Assessing Officer to hold that the assessee has not got approval for the housing project OR that the conditions laid down in section 80IB (10) stated violated.
DIT (E) was not justified in forming an opinion that the objects of the assessee are for a specific community being violative of the provisions of s. 13(1)(b) of the Act. As a matter of fact, the assessee has been serving the public irrespective of caste, creed and religion by imparting education and, thus, it is entitled to registration u/s 12AA of the Act.
It is settled law that when an officer adopts one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in a loss of revenue or when two views are possible and the Assessing Officer takes one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, the order cannot be treated as erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.
Apprehension of the assessees that they have been made liable to pay a portion of tax u/s 179 of the Act, is unwarranted and misconceived. As per the provisions of the Income-tax Act, no person can be made liable to pay any tax for himself or on behalf of any other entity for which he has been associated unless a specific order is passed in the matter. In the present case, no such order u/s 179 of the Act has been passed.
In the instant case of the assessee, the legal position is clear in as much as not having made the application under section 197 r.w.s. 195 of the Act to the Assessing Officer for lower or no deduction of tax, he was statutorily duty bound to have deducted tax at the specified rate on the ‘sum’ i.e. the sale consideration, before making payment to the seller who was an NRI.
Where the assessee has written off the value of assets in the books of assessee as obsolete, can it still be include the value of said machinery in the block of assets and claim depreciation thereon. In the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s Bharat Aluminium Co., Ltd., the Court held that in order to be entitled to claim depreciation asset has to be owned by the assessee and it has to be used for the purpose of business or profession, but the expression used for the purpose of business, would apply for block of assets and not any specific building, machinery, plant or furniture in the said block of assets, as the individual assets loose identity after becoming inseparable part of block of assets.
Tribunal had taken the view that when the AIR shows some investment and the assessee denies it, no addition can be made on account of unexplained investments without further evidence to show that the assessee made investments.
The deduction under section 80-IA(4)(iv)(c) is allowed for a period of ten years. The dispute in the present appeal is as to whether assessment year 2005-06 should be the first year in which the deduction should be allowed. It was clarified at the time of hearing of the appeal that from the assessment year 2006-07, the assessee has been getting the deduction under section 80-IA(4).
In the instant case, it was noticed that the agreement clearly stated that the owner would continue to be in possession of the scheduled property till such time the developer completes the construction of the said complex and delivers their areas infra. In the instant case, nothing was brought on record to substantiate that the possession of the land was delivered to the developer or the land was not in assessee’s possession.
From a reading of the provisions of section 50C(2), it is clearly mandated that if an assessee challenges or objects to the Assessing Officer adopting the guideli ne value of the property for stamp duty purposes in place of the stated consideration in the sale deed for the purposes of computing LTCG, then the Assessing Officer ought to refer the property for valuation to the Valuation Officer of the Income-tax department.
