In the present case, the assessee was allotted two flats on two different stories which he claimed as eligible for exemption u/s 54. Admittedly there is no unity of construction between such flats. The Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sushila M. Jhaveri (supra) has categorically held that the exemption u/s 54 is available only in respect of one house and not more than one.
The consultancy charges had been paid by the assessee in providing technical services regarding the patents, obtaining patent information from innovator companies and obtaining innovator samples for research and development purposes. The payments have been accepted towards research and not towards registering the patents.
It is now a settled proposition of law that the Appellate Tribunal under section 254(1) of the Act, had no power to take back the benefit conferred by the Assessing Officer or enhance the assessment. Once the matter has been restored by the Tribunal, the income cannot be enhanced from what was determined at the time of original assessment proceedings, which was the subject matter of dispute before the Tribunal. This proposition of law has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hukumchand Mills Ltd. v/s CIT, [1966] 62 ITR 232 (SC), and had now been reiterated in Mcorp Global (P) Ltd. (supra). Therefore, in view of this proposition of law, the enhancement of assessment by making 100% disallowance in respect of free food allowance cannot be sustained and the same is restricted to 50%, as was made by the Assessing Officer in the original round of proceedings. Consequently, this ground is allowed to this extent only.
A glance at the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, suggests that in order to be covered by it, there has to be concealment of the particulars of the income of the assessee. Secondly, the assessee must have furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. The meaning of the word “particulars” used in section 271(1)(c) would embrace the details of the claim made.
The provisions of section 54EC do not make any reference to the assessment year in which the investment is to be made but only lays down a condition of 6 months period of time after the date of transfer of the capital asset.
The assessee computed the gain from sale of flats as long term capital gain taking holding period from the date of development-cum-sale agreement. The Assessing Officer has not accepted the claim of the assessee and has computed capital gain as short term capital gain as the assessee had taken possession of the flats only on 24-2-2005 and therefore, in his view the flats were held only from that date.
The preparation of vegetarian food items and selling the same was mainly for popularizing the vegetarian food habits and in this way the assessee is engaged in promoting the vegetarianism among the people so that they can change their living habits and take the necessary steps for the better of humanity, which is undoubtedly a charitable object of the assessee. The major portion of the income received by the assessee was donated to ISKCON which is a Public Charitable Trust of worldwide recognition and reputation and any donation from one charitable trust to another charitable trust constitute, application of income for the charitable purposes.
In the case of Ashika Stock Broking Ltd. (supra) it was held that once there was a net surplus from share dealing of market segment and future and option segments together and if there was a net profit therefrom the assessee was entitled for rebate of entire STT. In the case under consideration surplus from share dealing from market segment/ future and option segment is not there, but there is net income after setting off of losses.
It is now settled law that in order to sustain a penalty under section 271(1)(c) the department must establish that the receipt of the amount in dispute constitutes income of the assessee and part from the falsity of the explanation given by the assessee, the department must have before it cogent material or evidence from which it can be inferred that the assessee has consciously concealed the particulars of his income or has deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars in respect of such income.
Ground No. 3 relates to disallowance of prior period expenses amounting to Rs. 2,33,864/-. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that expenses of petty nature have been written off during the year, details of which have been furnished during the course of assessment proceedings. The Ld. DR strongly supported the orders of lower authorities.
