×Latest Case Laws on Income Tax by various Income Tax Appellate Tribunals in India
These are the latest case laws decided by various Income Tax Appellate Tribunals (ITAT) of India on Income Tax which have been published recently. The case laws are open for discussion and we invite expert comments from our members on its applicability and effect on relevant issues.
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 29.02.2016 of ld. CIT(A) for the assessment year 2012-13 on the following grounds :
1. That the assessment order passed by the AO is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction and against the principle of natural justice.
2. That the AO has grossly erred in law and on facts in making disallowance of Rs. 83,41,330/- in the Assessment Year 2012-13 when the impugned transaction could only be subject to scrutiny in AY 2015-16.
3. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 62,68,311/- made by an AO on account of non fulfillment of conditions U/s 54F of the Act (Delivery of possession and Payment of entire sale consideration) as the appellant has already made substantial payment for a residential house.
4. That the CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 19,00,000/- made by an AO on account of nonutilisation of amount for the new asset within the period mentioned in sub section (1) of Section 54 of the Act when the same were utilised for the residential house.
5. Without prejudice, the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that an amount of Rs. 10,60,311 was utilised for construction of the new asset.
6. That the AO and subsequently the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in taking the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- as cost of acquisition for calculation of indexed cost of acquisition against the Rs. 2,20,450/-.
7. That the AO and subsequently the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in making a disallowance of Rs. 52,867/ on account of cost of improvement incurred in year 2010-11.
8. That the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the various observations and findings of the learned assessing officer in the impugned assessment order are irrelevant and vitiated in the law
9. Tha on he facts and circumstances of the case the interest charged U/s 234B and 234C has been wrongly and illegally charged and in any case is highly excessive.
10. That the material available on record have not been properly considered and judicially interpreted and the same do not justify the addition made.
11. That the addition made is based on mere surmises and conjunctures and the same cannot be justified by any material on record and the same are highly excessive.
2. Briefly stated, the facts attending to the present case are that the assessee derives income from Salary, income from business or profession, and other sources. The assessee filed its return of income at Rs.25,00,260/-, which stood revised on 24.09.2012 declaring total income of Rs.24,80,260/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS so as to scrutinize large deductions claimed u/s. 54B, 54C, 54G & 54GA. During the year under consideration, the assessee sold a property for a total consideration of Rs.98,00,000/- and claimed deduction of Rs. 81,44,608/- under section 54 of the Income Tax Act after claiming indexed cost of acquisition of Rs.16,13,187/- The assessee had invested a sum of Rs.62,68,311/- in the residential flat and deposited Rs. 19,00,000/- in the capital gain account. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction of Rs.62,68,311/- on the premise that assessee has not taken possession nor the purchase deed has been executed within the period of three years. Therefore, the Assessing Officer also disallowed the deduction of Rs.19,00,000/- deposited in the capital gain account on the ground that assessee had not utilised the same within the prescribed period. The Assessing Officer also reduced the indexed cost of acquisition by Rs.1,20,152 stating that the assessee has not been able to produce evidences in respect of the expenses of Rs.20,450/- incurred at the time of the purchase and also did not allow deduction of Rs.52,867/- claimed by the assessee on account of cost of improvement in the year 2010-11 on the ground that the assessee has failed to provide documentary evidence in support thereof. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who after considering the submissions of the assessee and material on record, confirmed the action of the Assessing