9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (10) TMI 698 - AT - Income TaxWhether the income declared is agricultural income Reduced the agricultural income out of declared income - Land having an extent of 1.30 acres, though acquired in April, 2007, yet he was in possession of the same even prior to March, 2007 - Rubber estate was located in a fertile area at Perunad village of Pathanamthitta district and accordingly, contended that the income estimated by the Assessing Officer is very much on the lower side Held that - Assessee has failed to furnish any evidence in support of the claim of availability of agricultural income to the extent declared by him - Assessee has not furnished any evidence before the tax authorities to substantiate the claim of agricultural income declared by him. The assessee has also not furnished any evidence to show that the land purchased on 12-04-2007 was in fact in his possession prior to March, 2007 Decided against the Assessee. Disallowance of 1/5th of depreciation claimed on vehicles towards personal use Held that - Assessee had claimed depreciation on four motor cars, viz., Corolla, Gypsy, Bolero and Scorpio A.O. estimated the personal use at 1/5th and accordingly disallowed the 1/5th of the depreciation amount claimed on these vehicles - Assessee did not file any material to substantiate his contention that these vehicles were exclusively used for business purposes only Decided against the Assessee.
Issues:
1. Determination of agricultural income 2. Assessment of cash credits under section 68 of the Act 3. Disallowance of foreign travel expenses 4. Disallowance of sales promotion expenses 5. Disallowance of depreciation claimed on vehicles Issue 1: Determination of Agricultural Income: The assessee challenged the reduction of agricultural income from Rs.7,59,664 to Rs.6,30,000 by the Assessing Officer. The assessee claimed to derive income from a rubber estate, but discrepancies in land documents led to the AO's estimation. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision due to lack of evidence supporting the assessee's contentions. The ITAT confirmed the CIT(A)'s order as the assessee failed to provide evidence of possession or income, leading to the decision to uphold the assessment. Issue 2: Assessment of Cash Credits: The AO assessed cash credits totaling Rs.5,06,000, Rs.9,21,925, Rs.6,80,000, and Rs.8,27,237 under section 68 of the Act as income, as the assessee did not provide evidence. The CIT(A) affirmed these assessments. However, before the ITAT, the assessee presented confirmation letters from creditors, which were not considered by the CIT(A. The ITAT decided to remand the issues back to the AO for re-examination based on the newly submitted evidence. Issue 3: Disallowance of Foreign Travel Expenses: The AO disallowed foreign travel expenses of Rs.2,94,840, reducing it to Rs.1,50,355. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance as the purpose of the trip was not convincingly related to business activities. The ITAT agreed with the CIT(A) that the explanation provided was vague, leading to the confirmation of the disallowance. Issue 4: Disallowance of Sales Promotion Expenses: Due to inadequate vouchers, the AO disallowed 1/5th of the sales promotion expenses, a decision upheld by the CIT(A). The ITAT found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order as no new evidence was presented to challenge the findings. Issue 5: Disallowance of Depreciation on Vehicles: The AO disallowed 1/5th of the depreciation claimed on four vehicles due to potential personal use, a decision upheld by the CIT(A). The ITAT confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision as the assessee failed to prove exclusive business use of the vehicles. Consequently, the appeal was treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes. This comprehensive analysis of the judgment provides insights into each issue raised by the assessee, the decisions made at different levels, and the final resolution by the ITAT.
|
