|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 169110 Records
-
2024 (12) TMI 72
Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) denied - Form No. 67 was filed belatedly - exparte assessment order challanged - HELD THAT:- Since the appeal against exparte assessment order is still pending before NAFC. Without expressing anything on merits of the case, the present appellate order passed by CIT[A] is hereby set-aside with a direction to decide the same along with the other appeal within a period of four months.
-
2024 (12) TMI 71
Disallowance of carried forward loss and unabsorbed depreciation u/s 72AB due to merger - HELD THAT:- We note that after taking into account the factual aspect of assessee’s case under consideration, we note that the assessee has fulfilled the conditions mentioned u/s 72AB of the Act and hence, the assessee is eligible to claim set-off of accumulated loss and un-absorbed depreciation.
AO has erred in interpreting the provisions to the effect that the claim could be made only after completion of the mandatory period referred to in sub section (2) of Section 72AB of the Act. The AO is therefore, directed to allow the claim of set off of carry forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation allowance of the predecessor entity in the hands of the appellant to the extent it is allowable in the hands of the predecessor entity as per records, in accordance with the provisions of Section 72BA of the Act. Decided in favour of assessee.
Disallowance u/s 36(1)(viia) as assessee not having any rural branches and thus no rural advances - HELD THAT:- As decided in [2022 (12) TMI 1544 - ITAT RAJKOT] in assessee's case, wherein the Tribunal passed order to allow assessee's claim under section 36(1) (viia), what is to be seen by Assessing Officer is as to whether provision for bad and doubtful debts is created, irrespective of whether it is in respect of rural or non-rural advances by debiting profit and loss account and, to extent provision for doubtful debts so created, assessee is entitled for deduction subject to upper limit of deduction laid down in said section. In the case of Kodungallur Town Co-op Bank Ltd. [2016 (7) TMI 1413 - ITAT COCHIN] a Cooperative Bank is entitled to claim deduction of bad debts provided in first part of clause (viia) (a) of section 36(1) being 7.5 per cent of total income and same cannot be denied linking it to rural advances. Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2024 (12) TMI 70
Denial of Exemption u/s 11 - non-filing of audit report in Form 10B along with return of income - form No. 10B was filed by after the filling of return of income - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, in the instant case the audit report in Form 10B was filed by the assessee through e-portal on 26.12.2020. Hence the audit report in Form 10B was filed prior to one month of the due date for furnishing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139 of the IT Act i.e. 15th February, 2021 in the instant case. Although the assessee failed to reflect the fact of filing audit report in its return of income, we are of the considered opinion that this being a technical error inadvertently committed by the assessee needs to be pardoned.
Since the audit report in Form 10B was furnished by the assessee prior to one month of the due date for furnishing the return of income, therefore, the compliance of section 12(1)(b)(ii) r.w.s. 44AB, Explanation (ii) was very well made by the assessee and accordingly the order passed by Addl./JCIT(A)-1, Jaipur in our opinion is not justified. Accordingly, we set-aside the order passed by Ld. Addl./JCIT(A)- 1, Jaipur and allow the claim of exemption u/s 11 & 12 by the assessee in the light of the fact discussed in foregoing paragraphs that audit report for the period under consideration in Form 10B was filed prior to one month of the extended due date of filing return of income. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed.
-
2024 (12) TMI 69
Reopening of assessment - undeclared sale consideration/capital gain - AO specifically mentions that the income is likely to be escaped is more than Rs. 50 lakhs and is represented in the form of asset - HELD THAT:- The assessee had merely sold immovable property amounting to Rs. 43 lakhs and, in fact, had invested this amount in purchase of another property of Rs. 90 lakhs leading to an addition of Rs. 47 lakhs. In this context, we have also examined the order under clause (d) of section 148 dated 29.03.2022 and we find that on the basis of sale of immovable properties worth Rs. 1,33,00,000/-, the assessee was show caused for the purpose of section 147 of the Act and, accordingly, the notice u/s 148 dated 29.03.2022 was issued.
While in notice u/s 148A(b), AO had relied information of sale of immovable property worth 43lacs, received, from Sub-registrar and the TDS return filed u/s 194IA of the Act, was also considered to be sale of immovable property, while it was, in regard to TDS deduced as purchaser.
Thus it was not a case of capital gain of Rs 1,33,00,000/- escaping assessment, as alleged in notice under clause (b) of section 148A of the Act. It is no doubt a case of mechanical reopening, as the AO, did not even bother to differentiate, on the two different information heads independently, and cumulatively considered to be escapement of capital gains of more than Rs. 50, lacks. The contention of Ld. DR that only prima facie case has to be seen at time of reopening is not sustainable it the light of mandate of new regime with regard to reopening of assessment beyond three years. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2024 (12) TMI 68
Levy of fee u/s 234E - Interest u/s 220(2) on default amount also been imposed - assessee submits that the provisions of sec 200A(1)(c)(d)(f) have come into force by Finance Act, 2015 only with effect from 01.06.2015 and there was no authority or competence or jurisdiction in respect of the assessment of the earlier period - HELD THAT:- As relying on SHRI BHASKAR ROY [2021 (12) TMI 784 - ITAT KOLKATA] we are inclined to hold that the demand raised by the Income-tax Authorities for levying late fee u/s. 234E of the Act for the period prior to 1-6-2015 cannot be sustained and we order accordingly. Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2024 (12) TMI 67
Addition u/s 50C - difference between sale consideration and stamp duty value - Difference was marginally very low i.e. only 2.7% of the sale consideration - HELD THAT:- Addition was unwarranted. Since this argument aligns with the judicial principles emphasising that minor deviation does not necessarily reflect an attempt to evade taxes, particularly when the variation is below a threshold limit of 5%. We in this respect rely on the decision of ‘Shaista Irphan Mogul 2021 (8) TMI 270 - ITAT MUMBAI]. Accordingly, the addition made u/s 50C is deleted and Ground of the assessee is allowed.
Allowability of deduction u/s 54F - Assessee claimed that two flats were constituted a single unit based on architectural plans and interior design - In this regard, architectural certificate was also furnished before the Bench. It is also acknowledged that the assessee has made substantive investment within the prescribed period by depositing in CGAS account, hence, we deem it necessary to allow the instant issue in favour of the assessee considering the judgment of Devdas Naik [2014 (7) TMI 173 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and accordingly, we direct the AO to delete the impugned addition.
Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2024 (12) TMI 66
Validity of assessment completed u/s 153A - No valid and lawful approval u/s.153D - assessee agued statutory approval given to the Assessing Officer for the assessment orders was not based on application of mind - approval was given by Addl. CIT in a mechanical manner within a short period of time during which it was humanly impossible for the Addl. CIT to go through exhaustive assessment records, search & seizure materials and to thereafter give approval after due application of mind - HELD THAT:- We are of the view that the issue in dispute is squarely covered by the order Subodh Agarwal [2023 (2) TMI 1072 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] order of Serajuddin & Co. [2023 (3) TMI 785 - ORISSA HIGH COURT] and Shiv Kumar Nayyar [2024 (6) TMI 29 - DELHI HIGH COURT] in favour of the assessee. Further the issue in dispute is also squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the orders of Khoday Ehshwarsa and Sons [2024 (9) TMI 1660 - ITAT BANGALORE]. and in the case of Sanjay Duggal and Others [2021 (1) TMI 909 - ITAT DELHI] and in the case of Quality Structure Pvt. Ltd.[2024 (9) TMI 1661 - ITAT LUCKNOW] In view of the foregoing, we set aside the impugned appellate orders of learned CIT(A) deserve to be set aside; and the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer deserve to be annulled.
Additions made in absence of incriminating material - Following the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd. [2023 (4) TMI 1056 - SUPREME COURT] no additions could be made in the assessment orders passed by the AO in the aforesaid assessment orders. Accordingly, the additions made in the aforesaid assessment orders deserve to be deleted.
-
2024 (12) TMI 44
Assessment u/s 153C - AO’s assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153C - HELD THAT:- A predecessor Bench of this Court in CIT v. Kabul Chawla [2015 (9) TMI 80 - DELHI HIGH COURT] held that if no incriminating material is found during the course of the search in respect of an issue, then no addition in respect of such an issue can be made in the assessment under Sections 153A and 153C of the Act.
-
2024 (12) TMI 43
Revision u/s 263 - provision made for depreciation on investment and the assessee had added back only relating to investments in India and excluded investments outside India - HELD THAT:- The tribunal by placing reliance on the order passed by it in the case of assessee for Assessment Year 1996-97 and 1997-98 inter alia held that the revenue as well as assessee are bound by the decision rendered by the tribunal and therefore, in the light of decision rendered by tribunal, the Commissioner of Income Tax committed an error in holding that the order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Accordingly, the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax was set aside.
The Supreme Court in G.M. Mittal Stainless Steel (P.) Ltd. [2002 (12) TMI 13 - SUPREME COURT] has held that power under Section 263 of the Act has to be exercised on the basis of the material, which was available at the time when the Commissioner of Income Tax passed an order, the order passed by the tribunal was operative and therefore, the Assessing Officer's order could not have been termed as erroneous. Merely because the order of the Assessing Officer was passed relying which was subsequently reversed by this court cannot justify the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Act. Decided in favour of the assessee.
-
2024 (12) TMI 42
Validity of reopening of assessment - deduction u/s 54B was wrongly claimed for the agricultural land sold by the brothers of the petitioner - objection filed by petitioner were rejected - HELD THAT:- It is a settled law that inspite of amendment made in the year 1998 u/s 147 of the Act, the reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated on change of opinion.
For concluding that AO had applied mind to an issue not only assessment order is relevant but it can also be determined from record. It is for AO to determine how to frame an order. The issue accepted may not be even discussed in the order and assessee is not responsible for this. Non recording of reasons by the AO in assessment order for accepting the explanation on an issue shall not make a foundation for reassessment on same issue as AO had already dealt with it and formed an opinion.
The issue of deduction u/s 54B was raised and discussed in the assessment proceedings. The explanation of petitioner on the issue was accepted and deduction u/s 54-B of the Act was allowed. It is inferred that AO formed an opinion albeit, not recorded the reasons for it.
The notice issued u/s 148 for assessment year 2009-2010 and order rejecting the objections are quashed. WP allowed.
-
2024 (12) TMI 41
Unexplained money u/s. 69A - cash deposited in bank account of the appellant - HELD THAT:- As decided in SMT. PK NOORJAHAN [1997 (1) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT] deliberating on the term "may" used in Section 69 said Income-tax Officer is not obliged to treat the source of investment as income in every case where the explanation offered by the assessee is found to be not satisfactory. It was further observed that the question as to whether the source of the investment should be treated as income or not u/s. 69 of the Act has to be considered in the light of the facts of each case.
Discretion has been conferred on the Income-tax Officer u/s. 69 of the Act to treat the source of investment as the income of the assessee if the explanation offered by the assessee is not found satisfactory and the said discretion has to be exercised keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the particular case.
As the assessee in the present case had failed to come forth with any plausible explanation both before the A.O/CIT(Appeals) as regards the source of the cash deposits in his bank account, therefore, we principally concur with the view taken by them.
But it would be incorrect to not consider the fact that the assessee being a 44 years old commerce graduate would have some amount of cash in hand out of his past savings/current years income in his possession, viz. (i) private job with New Creative Fibre; (ii) wholesale business in the name of “Suman Combines”; and (iii) past accumulated savings as on the date of making the cash deposits in his bank account. We firm conviction that an amount can safely be held that he would have been in possession of the assessee at the time of depositing of cash in his bank account during the year under consideration. Accordingly,we scale down the addition made by the A.O to Rs. 17.91 lacs [Rs.19.71 lacs (-) Rs. 2 lacs]. Assessee appeal partly allowed.
-
2024 (12) TMI 40
Addition u/s 68 - unexplained cash credits in bank account - HELD THAT:-Assessee is engaged in the business of textile and grey and is filing return of income for many years. The cash sales in the business of assessee, is a usual practice. Thus, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, entire cash deposit during demonetization period cannot be treated as unexplained credit, for a businessman having turnover of more than Rs. 1.00 crore.
Considering the fact that the assessee is not able to substantiate the source of entire cash deposit, similarly entire cash deposit cannot be treated as income. Therefore, a reasonable addition out of total cash deposit will be sufficient to avoid the possibility of revenue leakage. Thus, considering the facts of the present case, 20% of total cash deposit are upheld and remaining addition is deleted.
So far as taxing the addition is concerned, the cash deposit is out of business receipt, therefore, it cannot be taxed u/s 115BBE. AO is directed to tax the sustained addition at normal rate of tax. In the result, ground No. 1 of the appeal is partly allowed.
Addition of sundry creditors - no supporting evidence like copy of bills, Ledger account and proof of subsequent payment is filed - CIT(A) confirmed the action of AO - HELD THAT:- On considering the submission and perusal of supporting evidence in the form of account confirmation and sample purchase bill, find that neither the AO nor the ld. CIT(A) verified such bills and account confirmation or made any independent investigation of such evidences. Moreover, all the purchase bills are in respect of yarn. Complete details of creditors are available on sales invoices/purchase bills. Thus, no justification of making such addition. AO is directed to delete the addition. In the result, ground No. 2 of appeal is allowed.
Ad hoc disallowances of 10% of expenses - assessee submits that the assessee has offered income u/s 44AD, thus, there is no scope of further addition - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) confirmed the action of AO with similar view. Before me, the ld. AR of the assessee vehemently argued that the assessee has offered income under Section 44AD. On perusal of Profit & Loss Account and computation of total income, we do not find any such reference in offering income u/s 44AD, thus, no merit in the submission of assessee. Considering the nature of expenses and the ratio of ad hoc disallowance being 10% only which is on reasonable basis. Thus, no reason to interfere in the findings of lower authorities. In the ground No. 3 of appeal is dismissed.
-
2024 (12) TMI 39
Addition in respect to loan obtained u/s 68 or under section 69A - HELD THAT:- Assessee, vide submission had submitted before the Assessing Officer, a detailed reply along with documents wherein confirmation in respect of loan taken from M/s. Abhilasha Shoppers Pvt. Ltd. for the period from 01/04/2012 to 31/03/2015 were submitted.
It is clear that the loan creditor is assessed to income tax and its address and PAN details are matter of record. The financial statements of M/s.Abhilasha Shoppers Pvt. Ltd., were also submitted.
The amount received and payable by the assessee as on 31/03/2013, is verifiable from the financial statements of the lender. The TDS certificate also placed - assessee has discharged its onus to explain the credit by adducing proper legal evidence. The amount has been repaid through proper banking channel and same is verifiable from the bank statement of the assessee. The statements of various persons reproduced in assessment order are not with reference to the verification of loan transaction of the assessee. They are general statements recorded by Investigation Wing of Kolkata, which are reproduced in the assessment order and are not in respect to any enquiry of loan in the case of the assessee. Confirmed copy of ledger evidencing repayment to lender is furnished. The legal evidence placed on record to explain loan credit does not get discredited by general statements.
Addition u/s 68 - In the present case also, the loan amount has been repaid through proper banking channel along with interest. On the above factual position, there remains no scope to make addition under section 68. Consequently, respectfully following the decision of M/s. Vibrant Global Capital Ltd [2024 (11) TMI 312 - ITAT NAGPUR] and detailed legal position discussed therein, we are of the considered opinion that the addition made in the present case of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act is unjustified and unsustainable on facts and in law. In assessee’s case, the confirmation and financial statement of lender have been placed on record. The assessee has reasonably discharged his onus to explain the credit by adducing legal evidence on record. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer on this issue and the addition made u/s 68 is hereby directed to be deleted. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.
Addition being interest paid to M/s. Abhilasha Shoppers Pvt. Ltd. - The interest paid by the assessee is through proper banking channel. The TDS was deducted and was deposited in the account of the Government. The genuineness of loan transaction is held by us to have been established and we have ordered deletion of the addition of ₹ 50 lakh. The loan obtained has been utilized for the purpose of business. The interest paid to the very same party during subsequent assessment year has been allowed. Accordingly, the addition made by the AO by disallowing interest paid is held to be unjustified.
-
2024 (12) TMI 38
Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - HELD THAT:- Where assessee’s own funds and other non-interest bearing funds were more than the investment in tax free securities no disallowance u/s 14A can be made. See Cyquator Media Services Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT [2023 (7) TMI 855 - ITAT MUMBAI]. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2024 (12) TMI 37
Validity of reopening u/s. 147 - issuance of notice u/s. 148 beyond the period of four years - addition towards share application money u/s. 68 - HELD THAT:- From the perusal of the aforesaid list of companies and the companies from whom assessee had received share application money, it can be seen that nowhere these companies have been mentioned by Shri Pravin Jain that any of the 6 entities were managed and controlled by him.
Thus, the very premise of the ld. AO while recording the reasons is based on wrong assumption of facts. It is a very well settled law that ld. AO has acquired jurisdiction based on valid reasons and material and information referred to in the reasons recorded should have live link nexus with the income escaping assessment. If there is no such material and information relevant to the assessee, then ld. AO cannot reopen the case based on incorrect assumption of facts recorded and the reasons recorded.
Reasons recorded by the AO do not clothe the him with the jurisdiction to reopen the assessment u/s 147 for the second time and accordingly, the reason recorded as well as the notice issued u/s. 148 is invalid and accordingly, same is quashed. Thus, the entire re-assessment order is quashed. Appeal of the assessee is allowed on jurisdictional issue.
-
2024 (12) TMI 36
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Notice beyond period of four years - assessee was beneficiary of accommodation entries from the account maintained in HDFC Bank - HELD THAT:- The reopening was made u/s 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 after the AO received information from DDIT(Inv), Unit-4(1), Kolkata. Therefore, the reopening can only be made subject to the satisfaction of the conditions as provided in first proviso to section 147 which state that where the assessment has been framed u/s 143(3) reopening after a period of four years can only be made if the escapement of income is attributed to the failure on the part of assessee to disclose material facts either in the return of income or during the course of assessment proceedings.
This is not the facts in the present case. We note that the assessee has fully disclosed all the facts in the return of income filed u/s 139(1) of the Act and the case was also selected for scrutiny and assessment was framed vide order dated 22.12.2017 passed u/s 143(3).
Therefore, non-mentioning on the part of the AO that the reopening beyond four years is made u/s 147 because of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all the material facts which is necessary for assessment renders the re-assessment proceedings nullity.
Reopening of assessment has been made by the AO without recording a concrete and clear-cut findings about the failure of the assessee is bad in law and cannot be sustained. The case of the assessee finds support from the decision of CEAT Ltd. [2023 (1) TMI 73 - SC ORDER] wherein held that re-opening u/s 147 of the Act beyond 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year can only be made if the AO has recorded a finding in the reasons that the escapement is attributable to the failure of the assessee to fully and truly the material facts qua the impugned income and not otherwise - Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2024 (12) TMI 35
TDS u/s 195 - Deduction of TDS from the payments made to foreign associated enterprise/group companies - HELD THAT:- As relying on assessee’s own case in [2024 (8) TMI 928 - ITAT DELHI] we hold that since the remittance made by HCLT to the foreign subsidiary/ AEs are held to be not taxable in India in the hands of the recipient company in India, there would be no obligation for the payer i.e. assessee company, to deduct tax at source u/s 195 of the Act. This proposition is already settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology India Ltd. [2010 (9) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT]
No infirmity in the order of the ld CIT(A). Accordingly, the addition u/s 201(1) and interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act on the assessee is hereby deleted and the grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed.
-
2024 (12) TMI 34
Disallowance u/s 37 - Allowability of business expenses - CIT(A) deleted addition - HELD THAT:- Section 37 of the Act provides that any expenditure not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee laid out or expanded wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession”. The assessee wholly and exclusively claims that the entire expenses have been incurred for the business purposes.
The assessee company has paid tax at MAT rate and there is no tax evasion. The Ld CIT(A) has examined this issue in correct prospective and rightly deleted the additions towards disallowances of business, expenditure u/s 37 of the Act made by the AO.
Reasonings and findings of the Ld CIT(A), while granting relief is on proper appreciation of law expounded by the judicial dicta. We do not find any reasons to interfere with the findings of the Ld CIT(A). The appeal of the revenue is liable to be dismissed.
-
2024 (12) TMI 33
Estimation of gross agricultural income - calculating the net agriculture income @ 30% of gross income and thus making the addition of the balance amount as unexplained income - HELD THAT:- AO computed the income from paddy at Rs. 9,600/- per acre whereas income from wheat at Rs. 3,600/- per acre. After applying the rate of 30% the net income was estimated at 3,960/- in FY 1999-2000. In our opinion, the said calculation of AO was not based on any scientific formula or facts on record. Therefore, in our opinion, it would be reasonable and fair estimation of net agricultural income if both net profit rate of 45% is applied and 55% is treated as agricultural expenses.
The total agricultural income in respect of 33.75 acre of land would be 5940 x 33.75 = 2,00,475/-. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we are inclined to set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to make delete the addition to the extent of Rs. 66,825/- and addition to the tune of Rs. 15,525/- is sustained. The appeal is partly allowed.
Addition in respect of income in the name of Smt. Veena Mishra/wife of assessee - protective addition made in the assessee’s hand - as observed that she was a house wife and did not have any independent sources of income and investment and therefore in his opinion, the income of Smt. Veena Mishra was belonging to Dr. Jagannath Mishra so the income was assessed in the hands of assessee whereas the same was added protectively in the hands of Smt. Veena Mishra - HELD THAT:- Smt. Veena Mishra is an independently assessed to income tax and wealth tax. Besides we also note that the assessee Smt. Veena Mishra is also co-owner of the land and land measuring 4.72 acres belonged to Smt. Veena Mishra out of total family holding of 60 acres.
AO has made the addition in the hands of the assessee only on the basis of presumptions and assumptions without any substantive basis and also without bringing any evidences on record to the contrary to justify the inclusion of the assessee’s income in the husband’s hand.
Therefore, we are not in agreement with the conclusion drawn by the Ld. CIT(A) as the same is based upon in correction assumption and appreciation of facts and accordingly can not be sustained. We would like to mention that this income is to be assessed in the hands of Smt. Veena Mishra. Therefore the addition made, is accordingly, directed to be deleted by setting aside the order of CIT(A). The ground is allowed.
-
2024 (12) TMI 32
Penalty proceedings u/s. 270A - Denial of Exemption u/s. 54F - assessee had shown income from house property from two properties, thus, he inferred that once the assessee owns two residential properties and the income of both the properties have been offered by the assessee in the return - HELD THAT:- In this case it is neither a case of misrepresentation or suppression of fact because assessee has duly placed all the facts before the AO as well as in the return of income. Other clauses from ‘b’ to ‘f’ are also not applicable to show that it is a case of misreporting of income.
If ld. AO is levying the penalty by invoking Section 270A (9), then it is incumbent upon the AO to specify under which limb of Section 270A (9) he is initiating or is levying the penalty for misreporting of income.
Penalty u/s 270 A is not automatic or adjunct to any addition made by the AO. Misreporting has to be established and onus is on the AO to give finding as how it amounts to misreporting under the clauses of sub section (9) of section 270A.
As assessee had duly stated all the facts and stated that he was under a bonafide belief that the only property which he has purchased in his name (alongwith his father) on transfer of capital asset was the only property which was owned by him, and therefore on purchasing this property he can claim exemption u/s 54F. The other property which was bequeathed to him after demise of his mother and came as inheritance belonged to his mother and not him. On such bonafide belief and when this fact has been duly stated and reported, then where is the question of misrepresentation or suppression of fact.
At best it is an inference of AO on interpretation of statute and not something he has found out any suppression of facts on his own or by any inquiry. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
........
|
9911796707
