Document found during search was a third party document which was neither in the handwriting of the assessee nor bears her signature. Its inference has to be taken as stated by the person who possessed the document.
AO had disallowed the expenses u/s 14A by applying the rule 8D for the A.Y 07-08 but the assessee argued and gave the supporting of the decided case law by Hon’ble High Court in its own decision in which it was decided that the sec 14A would be applicable from A.Y 08-09
ITAT Ahmedabad held in the case Madhav Corporation vs. ACIT that the assessee has earned additional income which amount is disclosed consequence upon the search, hence it partakes the character of business income.
In the case of En-Vision Enviro Engineers (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT, it was held that deduction u/s 80IA(4) cannot be disallowed, merely on the ground that the assessee must be owner of the infrastructure facilities and the assess should be a developer and not contractor.
Sec. 80-IB(10) of the Act thus provides for deductions to an undertaking engaged in the business of developing and constructing housing projects under certain circumstances noted above. It does not provide that the land must be owned by the assessee seeking such deductions
‘On money’ received by the assessee did not have the character of income but was only an advance like the one received through cheque. Both will become part of the sale consideration to the assessee simultaneously on either handing over the possession of the flats or on execution of transfer deed whichever happens earlier.
As far as the invocation of extended period is concerned tribunal observed that improper credit taken which was detected by the department officers only. At no stage of appellant approached the department for any guidance that there was any confusion in admissibility of credit on the impugned services.
For the purpose of levy, assets are classified as two categories one as productive and other as non productive. Under the provisions of amended Act, tax is levied only on non productive assets such as residential house, urban land, jewellery, bullion, motor car etc. In the case in hand, industrial plots are being utilized as productive assets.
We find that it is not in dispute that the undisclosed bank account which was detected by the department contains transfer entries to other 5 undisclosed bank accounts maintained by the assessee. In view of this fact the Tribunal concluded that the subsequent disclosure of the assessee of existence of the said 5 bank accounts cannot be held as voluntary.
The Revenue has not brought any positive material on record to show that the assessee actually incurred any expenses in relation to earning of exempt income. In our considered view, before making disallowance under section 14A, it was imperative on the part of the Revenue
