The short dispute arising for consideration in this case relates to the year of assessability of capital gains arising on the property, which was subject matter of a development agreement, i.e. whether it is assessable in the year in which the development agreement was entered
The sole issue before us is whether the building in question constructed by the assessee on which exemption u/s 54F of the Act has been claimed is a residential building as claimed by the assessee or a building constructed for commercial use.
When a partner receives her/his share in the assets of the partnership firm or when he receives anything in excess of her/his share in the assets of the partnership firm and even in a case a partner receives a share of profit either in case of retirement or in case of dissolution, the same cannot be brought to tax
If banking facilities are not available at the place where land is purchased no disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act,1961. Unsubstantiated material found in pen drive cannot be considered as a conclusive evidence to make additions
The unsubstantiated loose sheets cannot be considered as a conclusive evidence to make any addition towards undisclosed income. It was held by the Supreme Court in the case of CBI vs. V.C. Shukla (1998) 3 SCC 410 that ‘file containing loose sheets of papers are not books’ and hence entries therein are not admissible u/s. 34 of the Evidence Act, 1872.
Even a cursory look at the admitted facts of the case would show that the transferee had neither performed nor was it willing to perform its obligation under the agreement in the previous year relevant to assessment year under consideration.
Mere non residential use subsequently would not render the property ineligible for benefit u/s.54F, if it is otherwise a residential property, as held by the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mahavir Prasad Gupta Vs JCIT (5 SOT 353).
We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant material available on record. It is undisputed fact that the department allowed the similar amortization of BOT Project expenditure in the earlier assessment year under scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Act.
Client acquisition cost paid by the assessee is towards acquiring an intangible asset and therefore eligible for depreciation u/s 32(1)(ii) of the Act.
In the present case before us, the assessee has offered the capital gains tax in the next year and there has not been any prejudice to the revenue. Further, the assessee has explained to the query raised during the scrutiny proceedings before the Assessing Officer was answered to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. Hence, the Order is not erroneous.
