assessee is eligible for the exemption under Section 54EC. I further find that the Mumbai bench, ITAT has held in the case of JCIT v. Smt. Armeda K. Bhaya (2005), 95 ITD 313 (copy filed) that for the purpose of Section 54 of the Act, it is sufficient compliance with the section that the assessee purchased the new flat in the names of himself, his father and mother and that it was not the requirement of the section that the new flat should be in the assessee’s exclusive name. It was held that the main condition of the section was that the sale consideration should be invested in the new house. I respectfully follow the ratio of the above decision. I accordingly confirm his order and dismiss the appeal filed by the revenue with no order as to costs.
Withholding tax proceedings under Section 201 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) were barred by limitation, since it has been initiated beyond a reasonable period of four years. Further the Tribunal held that in the absence of period of limitation under Section 201 of the Act prior to an amendment2, a reasonable time period was to be read into it, which was within 4 years from the end of the relevant Financial Year
In this case, the issue which arose before the Honorable Delhi Tribunal was that whether income received by the assessee for provisioning of technical services in connection with prospecting or extraction or production of mineral oil would be taxable under section 9(1)(vii) read with section 115A of the Income Tax Act,1961(‘the IT Act’) or section 44BB of the IT Act.
Indisputably, the documents placed at sl. no. 3 on page no.15-20 of the paper book viz. affidavit of Ms. Anjana Vohra, her confirmation and PAN details were never considered by the AO, having been submitted before the AO after the conclusion of hearing on 23.12.2009. There is no sl. no.4 in the paper book; admittedly sl. nos. in the paper book having been wrongly numbered. Though the ld. CIT(A) referred to the relevant submissions of the assessee in the impugned order and these documents are stated to have been placed before him, he did not record his specific findings in the light of these documents and merely affirmed the order of the AO.
We have heard both the sides, considered the material on record and find that Assessing Officer made the impugned addition and CIT(A) confirmed the same, but inadvertently mentioned about addition of Rs. 90,000/- instead of Rs. 1,50,000. Since addition is on estimate basis and assessee has also given some basis for low withdrawals such as getting facilities from employer, free of cost etc, therefore, assessee deserves part relief. As such, we are of the view that it would meet the ends of justice, if the addition made and confirmed by the CIT(A) is restricted to Rs.90,000/- instead of Rs.1,50,000/-. So, assessee gets relief of Rs.60,000/-.
In the instant case, indisputably the society is running a school since 2003 and has been continuously allowed exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act. Ignoring these aspects, the ld. CIT in the impugned order rejected the request for registration while observing that the society did not place before him or the Addl. CIT, original instrument of its establishment and that it was controlled by family members of Shri Rajinder Singh while cash payments had been made without deduction of TDS.
In the case of Mukherjee Estate P. Ltd. reported in 244 ITR 1, the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court has held that income on account of display of hoardings on the top of the building for advertisement purposes to display the advertisement is not an income from house property as hoardings do not form part of the building which is income from the house property and other parts of the building.
The assessee is engaged in the business of trading in chemicals. The sales shown in the Profit & Loss Accounts were Rs. 3,15,85,478/- and against that purchases were shown as Rs. 93,31,117/- on which gross profit of Rs. 7.95% was declared. The assessee was required to submit month-wise details of sales and purchases according to which the total sales were reported at Rs. 3,22,81,924/- and purchases were reported at Rs. 3,04,17,709/-. Thus, it was observed by the Assessing Officer that there was a difference of Rs. 6,96,447/- in the sales and Rs. 10, 86,596/- in the purchases.
Second appeal could not have been filed against the same order when the first appeal had already been dismissed by the ld. CIT(Appeals). On the other hand, the ld. CIT, DR submitted that the first appeal against the assessment order had been decided and, therefore, the second appeal filed belatedly before the ld. CIT(Appeals) is non-est. We have considered the facts of the case and submissions made before us.
Balance in the shares account is Rs.23,52,580/- whereas as per books of account and as per trial balance it is Rs.22,93,130/- and assessee has failed to explain the difference or substantiate his plea that there is no difference. As such, it is held that since assessee has not been able to explain the difference, therefore, addition is called for which has rightly been confirmed by the CIT(A) whose action is further confirmed and this ground appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
