One thing is apparent that divergent view have been expressed by the Hon’ble Courts what is to be charged u/s.22 of the IT Act is the annual value of the property, irrespective of the fact whether or not any income is either actually received or accrued to the assessee.
The objective of the proviso to section 2(15) is to deny exemption to such assessee who are engaged in business activities in the garb of charitable purpose. Mere selling some product at a profit will not ipso facto hit the assessee by applying the proviso to section 2(15) and deny the exemption available u/s 11.
Requirement of the section 10(13A) is that any allowance (by whatever name called) granted to an assessee by his employer to meet expenditure actually incurred on payment of rent in respect of residential accommodation occupied by the assessee, to such extent as may be prescribed.
It is an undisputed fact that the income from lease has been considered by Assessee as income. It is also an undisputed fact that the AO has considered the lease entered by the Assessee to be a Finance lease to arrive at the conclusion that the assessee is not entitled to depreciation.
During the course of assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer noticed that Assessee has made investment in shares amounting to Rs. 95,45,400/-. Assessing Officer was of the view that the investment would generate exempt income and therefore provisions of section 14A becomes applicable.
There is no contract between the assessee and the transporter and the section 194C is applicable to work contract. The learned CIT(A) has found that in the instant case the clearing and forwarding contractor appoints for transportation of goods
We find that a clear finding was given by the Assessing Officer in para 13.2 of the assessment order in the case of Shri Pranbhai S Fultaria that assessee has not filed any return of income though specifically required u/s. 142(1) of the Act and assessee has not maintained books of account. Ld. CIT(A) has not given a finding that this observation of the AO in para-13.2 of the assessment order is incorrect that assessee is not maintaining any books of account.
When the value declared by the assessee as on 01.04. 1981 is supported by valuation report of a registered valuer and the A.O. has taken different valuation without obtaining valuation report from the DVO
In combined result, one appeal of assessee in ITA No. 1800/Ahd/2008 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the remaining six appeals of Revenue in the case of three assessees are dismissed and all 16 COs of the three assessees are also dismissed.
In view of our decision in respect of additional ground no.3, other issues raised by the assessee by way of additional grounds and original grounds as per the memo of appeal do not call for any adjudication at this stage, because after deciding the technical aspect, the learned CIT(A) has to decide the entire issues again.
