The assessee claimed that the agricultural income of the members of his family was around Rs.8 lacs per annum .But the AO found that only an amount of Rs. 3,37,152/-was reflected in the financial year 2005- 06 and Rs. 3,50,454/- in the Financial Year 2006- 07 and no basis or evidence was produced in support of agricultural income of Rs. 8 lacs. In these circumstances ,especially when admittedly no evidence was filed by the assessee to establish nexus between sale of agricultural produce and introduction of cash in capital account, the ld. CIT(A) upheld the findings of the AO. The situation remains the same even before us. The ld. AR did not refer us to any material, evidencing sale of agricultural produce . In the absence of any basis, we are not inclined to interfere.
It is observed that the ld. CIT(A) was of the view that since in the quantum appeal, the matter was set aside and sent back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) by the Hon’ble Tribunal vide its order dated 29.12.2010, the penalty order of the ld. AO dated 23.03.2010 will not survive. In fact, the Hon’ble Tribunal in the quantum appeal had restored the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for deciding the issue afresh. In such circumstances, we are of the considered view that the penalty order should be considered in the light of the quantum appeal decided by the ld. CIT(A). For this reason, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 13.09.2011 and restore the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to consider the penalty order of the ld. AO in the light of his findings in the quantum appeal.
The language in section 55A does not refer the ‘value of consideration’ but only uses the term ‘Fair Market value’. So the scope of the section gets con-fined to determine the fair market value of a capital asset only. Thus, considering the language of section 48 the value so deter¬mined cannot be substituted for ‘Full value of consideration’. – Section 50C states that the AO can refer to DVO u/s. 55A only if the assessee claims that the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority exceeds their fair market value or the value so adopted by stamp valuation authority has not been disputed by any authority, Court or High Court.
AIA Engineering Ltd Vs. Add CIT (ITAT Ahmedabad)- It was held that investment made by AIA Engineering Limited (AIA India or the assessee) in Vega Industries (Middle East) FZE (Vega UAE) shall not be treated as investment in a proprietary concern of AIA India though Vega UAE had no other shareholder.Vega UAE is considered to be established as an independent corporate entity with separate financial liability from those of its owner in accordance with the memorandum of incorporation and the only situation where the owner will be treated as personally responsible is regarding the omission of some specified information.
ACIT Vs Ashima Dye cot Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Ahmedabad)- After the amendment of section 36(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with effect from April 1, 1989, in order to obtain a deduction in relation to bad debts, it is not necessary for the assessee to establish that the debt, in fact, has become irrecoverable: it is enough if the bad debt is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee.
Read about the ITAT Ahmedabad case between DCIT and Shri Jayesh Chandulal Patel where penalty proceedings were restored for fresh adjudication by the Assessing Officer.
This is an appeal at the behest of the Assessee which has emanated from the order of Learned CIT(Appeals)-VI, Ahmedabad dated 26/02/2009 passed for A.Y. 2003-04. The assessee has challenged the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act of Rs. 16,50,000/- which was confirmed by the Learned CIT(Appeals).
Manishkumar & Co. Vs. ITO( ITAT Ahmedabad)- The first ground relates to addition of Rs.13,77,000/- made u/s 68 by the AO. During the assessment proceedings the assessee was asked by the AO to prove the identity of the lender, genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the lender in respect of the loan of Rs.13,77,000/- shown in the name of Shri Madanlal J. Panjabi. The assessee was only able to furnish the death certificate of Madanlal J. Panjabi. No other evidence including that from the legal heir of Mr. Panjabi was submitted The AO therefore, made the addition of Rs.13,77,000/- u/s 68 of the Act. Before ld. CIT(A) also no details could be submitted by the assessee. The ld. CIT(A), therefore, confirmed the action of the AO. Further aggrieved, now the assessee is in appeal before us.
M/s. Rudraksh Developers Vs. ITO (ITAT Ahemdabad)- The facts involved in the case of the assessee are similar to the facts in the case of Radhe Developers (supra) and accordingly we are of the view that the assessee has acquired the dominant over the land and has developed the housing project by incurring all the expenses and taking all the risks involved therein. We may mention here that, in our opinion, the decision in the case of Radhe Developers (supra) will not apply in a case where the assessee has entered into the agreement for a fixed remuneration merely as a contractor to construct or develop the housing project on behalf of the landowner.
According to the aforementioned definition, capital asset means property of any kind held by an assessee whether or not connected with the business or profession and it excludes certain items which while considering the facts of the present case are not relevant. Therefore, it has to be seen that whether by entering into an agreement vide which the assessee was allotted a particular flat by allotment letter whether the assessee has held any asset or not? By entering into an agreement to allot a flat, the assessee has identified a particular property which he is intended to buy from the builder
