Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the date of presentation of cheque in the bank is to be reckoned as the date of payment of advance tax and not the date on which the cheque is cleared and entered in the receipt roll as required under Rule 20 of the Central Government Account (Receipts and Payments) Rules 1983
The question which is posed for consideration is whether for considering the long term capital gain Cost Inflation Index is required to be considered at the date on which the property was inherited in the name of the assessee or as per the previous cost of acquisition at which previous owner had acquired the capital asset.
Addition, made solely on the basis of AIR information, especially in the absence of full details of parties and when the professional receipts declared by the assessee far exceeds than the amount mentioned in the AIR information, is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
It has been held time and again by this Tribunal that the additions made solely on the basis of AIR information are not sustainable in the eyes of the If the assessee denies that he is in receipt of income from a particular source, it is for the AO to prove that the assessee has received income as the assessee cannot prove the negative.
DR strongly supported the order of the AO that prima facie, the basis of addition was the statement of the survyed parties wherein it was accepted that they were providing accommodation transaction, and therefore the entries recorded were sham.
Smt. Rajneet Sandhu vs. DCIT (2010) 133 TTJ 0064 (Chandigarh): In this case the construction of the house was not completed within the prescribed period. It was held that section 54F does not prescribe that the residential house should be completed within the prescribed period and benefit under s. 54F was allowed.
Entire case of the Assessing Officer rests on Explanation (ii) to section 80IB(10)(a) of the Act which prescribes that the date of completion of construction of the housing project shall be taken to be the date on which the completion certificate in respect of such housing project is issued by the local authority.
when the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court has admitted substantial question of law on the addition, it becomes apparent that the addition so made has become debatable. The penalty was imposed on the basis of addition so made, therefore, when the addition on the basis of which the penalty was imposed has become doubtful/debatable, therefore, penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot survive.
Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that depreciation not claimed for by the assessee, cannot be allowed as a deduction despite the introduction of the concept of block assets. Depreciation is optional to the assessee and once he chooses not to claim it, the Assessing Officer cannot allow it while computing the income. Further, once the depreciation is option, applying the same ratio of Gujarat High Court and other Courts, it will be optional for block of assets also.
Section 194C of the I.T. Act provide that any person responsible for paying any sum to any resident for carrying out any work (including supply of labour) for carrying out any work, in pursuance of a contract between the contractor and a specified person, shall, at the time of credit of such sum to the account of the contractor
