Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.24 seconds)
Documents citing Deepak Kumar Kanjibhai Patel, Mumbai vs Ito 24(1)(5), Mumbai on 31 October, 2018

Shri Deepak Pal Singh, Hoshiarpur vs Income Tax Officer,Ward-1, Hoshiarpur on 31 December, 2018

3.3 With this background, I may now proceed to discuss the various issues arising in this appeal. The ld. CIT(A) has restricted the addition u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b) toward acquisition of immovable property (plot of land) without consideration, from Rs.5.05 lacs to Rs.3.95 lacs. I do not consider it as proper for two reasons. Firstly, the Revenue authorities are not correct in regarding it to be a case of 9 ITA No. 75/Asr/2018 (AY 2011-12) Deepak Pal Singh v. ITO acquisition (of immovable property) without consideration when the assessee himself states of having paid Rs.3.95 lacs, stating the said amount separately in his cash flow statement. Two, the AO has not, as the ld. CIT(A) states, made any estimation in this regard, but applied the stamp duty value, i.e., Rs.5.50 lacs, with reference to which the addition is to be reckoned as per the provision of law, deducting the lower consideration, if any, stated to have been paid by the assessee, and which both the Revenue authorities have, based on the assessee's earlier version as well as the absence of evidence as to payment, regarded as nil. The rationale behind the provision is as to why would one transfer his immovable property to a non-relative without proper consideration, i.e., the fair market value (fmv) thereof. Now, when the assessee himself claims of having paid Rs.3.95 lacs for the same, specifying the dates (17.11, 25.11 & 29.11.2010) on which the said amount was withdrawn, he states precisely what the provision presumes the state of affairs to be as. That is, why, pray, would one transfer his property to another without proper consideration. The Revenue's disbelief thereof is therefore not understood. It is, rather, the seller who should be disbelieved and questioned in the matter. The deeming provision of sec. 56(2)(vii)(b) can, thus, neither be for Rs.5.055 lacs nor for Rs.3.95 lacs, i.e., as by the Revenue authorities, but only for the said shortfall of Rs.1,10,515 (Rs. 5,05,515 - Rs. 3,95,000).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri Dipak Kumar Patel, , Raipur vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(3), Raipur on 26 December, 2022

13. Apropos, the ad-hoc disallowance of 15% out of vehicles and telephone expenses, I find that the same was made by the A.O primarily for the reason that the expenses booked under the respective heads of expenditure were not supported by proper vouchers. Also, it was observed by the A.O that involvement of personal element in respect of the aforesaid expenses could not also be ruled out. Although, I concur with the A.O that involvement of personal element as regards usage of car and telephone in absence of log book and call register 11 Shri Deepak Kumar Patel Vs. ITO-3(3) ITA No.275/RPR/2017 could not be ruled out, but at the same time is unable to subscribe to the adverse inferences which had been drawn by him as regards the expenses in question on the ground that the same were not supported by proper vouchers. I, say so, for the reason that the A.O had failed to point out a single voucher which as per him was either not found to be in order or the expenses therein claimed were liable to be disallowed for any other reason. On the basis of my aforesaid observations, I uphold the disallowance of the aforesaid expenses only to the extent of 5%. Thus, the Ground of appeal No.3 raised by the assessee is partly allowed in terms of the aforesaid observations.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Raipur Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1