The contention of the assessee is that he has shown income from truck under section 44AE of Rs. 2,01,000/- which includes income of Rs.1,07,890/- from M/s. Chandan Carriers, and therefore, no separate addition of Rs.1,07,890/- is warranted. None of the lower authorities has verified this contention of the assessee.
The assessee has filed its return of income on 31-12-2006 declaring total income at Rs. Nil. The assessee had claimed deduction at Rs. 1,91,400/- u/s. 80IB(10) of the income tax act. The Point of issue was the assessee has carried out the construction in violation of the original plan passed by AUDA and therefore violated the condition of section 80IB(10).
In his first fold of submission, he contended that assessee has sufficient interest free funds available which were used for the purpose of giving interest free advances, therefore, ld. Assessing Officer ought to have not disallowed any amount out of the interest expenses claimed on the borrowed funds.
The assessee submitted that the retention money which was payable after expiry of plant performance guarantee period is over, did not accrue to it on the supply of plant / equipment, hence the same cannot be considered as income of the assessee as the amount did not accrue or become due at that time.
By plain reading the words ‘any other business or commercial rights of similar nature’ in clause (b) of Explanation 3 to section 32 indicates that goodwill would fall under the expression ‘any other business or commercial right of a similar nature’.
Author in this articles discusses recent decision of ITAT – Ahmedabad holding that: 1. an eligible assessee cannot be declined the Treaty protection under section 90(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] on the ground that the said assessee has not been able to furnish a Tax Residency Certificate [TRC] in the prescribed form as required by the section 90(4).
ITAT Ahmedabad held In the case of Amar Enterprise vs. ITO that in the present case, the AO has demonstrated that the assessee has continued business transactions with the concerned party. It is also not disputed that the assessee has received payments from the concerned party.
Since basis for visiting assessee with penalty has been extinguished by quashing assessment order itself by Tribunal in appeal of assessee, impugned penalty imposed further had no leg to stand.
The Second issue relates to additional depreciation of Rs. 4,98,859/-. Assessing officer has disallowed the balance additional depreciation claimed by assessee on the machinery installed in the second half of the previous year relevant to the A.Y. 2007-08.
Hon’ble ITAT Ahemdabad in the case of Nikunjkumar H.Jariwala v/s ITO in I.T.A. No. 2404/Ahd/2011 vide order dated 19/03/2015 has held that as per the mandate provisions of section 50C(2) of the Act, the AO was not justified in adopting the value of the property as adopted by the stamp valuation authority without referring to the DVO for ascertaining the fair market value of the property.
