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.
A construction in inhabitable position cannot be equated with a residential house. If a person cannot live in a premises, then such premises cannot be considered as a residential house. In our opinion, investment in the construction would be complete as a house only when such house becomes habitable.
Condition precedent for claiming benefit u/s 54F is the capital gain realized from the sale of capital asset should have been parted by the assessee and invested either in purchasing a residential house or in constructing a residential house.
Exemption u/s. 54F has been granted to the assessee with a view to encourage construction of one residential house. The construction/purchase of a house other than one residential house is not covered by section 54F of the Act.
Since there is no monetary consideration involved in transferring the manufacturing division with all its assets and liabilities under scheme of amalgamation. it cannot be considered to be a slump sale within the meaning ascribed under section 2(42C)
