9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Deduction of royalty amount claimed by the assessee. 2. Ownership of the property in the name of the assessee's wife. 3. Benami transaction allegations against the assessee. Analysis: 1. The main issue in this case was whether the assessee was entitled to a deduction of a specific royalty amount claimed by him. The Income Tax Officer had refused to allow the deduction based on the belief that the lady, in whose name the payment was made, was a benamidar. The Assistant Commissioner upheld this decision but allowed a deduction of a different amount. The Court found that there was no evidence to support the claim that the lady was a benamidar, and thus, the deduction should have been allowed as claimed by the assessee. 2. The ownership of the property in the name of the assessee's wife was also a significant point of contention. The Assistant Commissioner presumed that the property belonged to the assessee head of the undivided family, based on the absence of evidence to the contrary. However, the Court held that there was no legal basis for such a presumption and that the property should be considered as belonging to the wife unless proven otherwise. 3. The allegations of a benami transaction against the assessee were crucial in determining the outcome of the case. The Court emphasized that for such a finding to be valid, there must be concrete evidence to support it. In this case, the Court found that the Assistant Commissioner's conclusion that the payment was to the assessee himself due to the lady being a benamidar lacked the necessary evidence. Therefore, the Court ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the deduction and ordering a refund of the deposit along with costs incurred in the Court.
|
