Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 382 - ITAT HYDERABADUnexplained investment - Computation of cost of construction - Variations in the measurements - difference between the constructed area as per the Valuation Cell and the actual area - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- There is no need to differ from the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). As far as Revenue appeals are concerned, with reference to deletion of additions made by the A.O. on the so-called unexplained investment, we are unable to understand how the building constructed as a part of development cum GPA agreement become unexplained investment, just because assessee has not maintained books of accounts. A.O. is very well aware that assessee has received advances and in fact he has accepted the estimation of 8% income on the advances received. Having accepted that assessee has received advance towards apartments, apart from partner's capital, the amounts received towards that should have been given credit. Even though reference to valuation was made, as pointed out by the Ld. CIT(A), the valuation report itself has certain basic errors in taking the areas and the valuation adopted is also on higher side. Thus CIT(A) has correctly arrived at the valuation of the building more or less to the extent of valuation as declared by the assessee over a period of three years. Therefore, the addition made by the A.O. as unexplained investment cannot be sustained. To that extent, the orders of Ld. CIT(A) in A.Y. 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 are to be sustained. - Decided against revenue. Allowing salary on the estimated income to the partners of the firm - Held that:- This is as per the provisions of partnership deed provisions under section 40(b) are correctly invoked and accepted by the Ld. CIT(A). In fact, A.O. himself was accepted deduction of salary in A.Y. 2009-2010 and that there is no issue in that year, but why he did not allow the same in A.Y. 2010-2011 is not understandable. Assessee has claimed one salary in A.Y. 2009- 2010 for one partner. Whereas, by virtue of the revised agreement, it claimed salaries for two persons in the later year. Since the partnership deed permits the remuneration to the partners, this has to be allowed as per the provisions of the Act. Therefore, Revenue contention on this issue cannot be accepted. In view of this, grounds raised by the Revenue in A.Y. 2009-2010 and 2010- 2011 are rejected.- Decided against revenue. Interest paid to partners disallowed - Held that:- The assessee has not furnished any evidence with reference to advancement of capital. Even though the statements enclosed to the computation of income do indicate capital of various partners, on similar capital in A.Y. 2009-2010 there was no claim of interest. As seen from the computation in A.Y. 2009- 2010 assessee has only claimed remuneration and interest was not claimed. Therefore, on what basis the interest was claimed in later year and how the interest was calculated was also not forthcoming from the record. In view of this, we agree with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) that interest cannot be allowed on the facts of the case. - Decided in favour of revenue.
|