9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 253X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... – the amount has nothing to do with the sale - The amount is a capital receipt in the assessee’s hands, and which character would not undergo any change due to lapse of time - it would stand to be reduced from the cost of the relevant asset (residential plot) on its sale, i.e., if and when it takes place, in terms of section 51 of the Act. Disallowance of claim of rent – Held that:- The assessee explaining its inability to improve matters as the recipient was not co-operating with it - No improvement in its case, besides stating that the godown had been rented at ₹ 2300/- per month w.e.f August 2006 onwards, stands made by the assessee - if the assessee could demonstrate the actual renting of the godown from Shri Lakdawalla and payment of the sum to him, i.e., as a fact, there is no particular reason for disbelieving the assessee’s claim - The amount stands paid as an advance, so that it having been forfeited by the landlord, it is quite possible that he may not co-operate with the assessee - The onus to establish the basic facts afore-stated would be though on the assessee – thus, the matter is remitted back to the AO for verification. Depreciation on a staff quarter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder the sales-tax law beyond a period of four years from the end of the relevant year, as in fact stood clarified by the assessee s own tax consultant vide his letter to the assessee dated 12.10.2007 with reference to the relevant provisions of law (PB pg 48). There is also no dispute with regard to the said liability, i.e., with the sales-tax department. There was thus clear evidence of cessation of liability, which, however, continued to be reflected as such (liability) by the assessee from year to year. The same was accordingly added as income for the year, and confirmed on that basis. 3. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. That the impugned amount/s of sales-tax, shown in the accounts as sales tax payable , is not payable, and in fact even not recoverable under law, is beyond doubt. However, on a query by the Bench to the ld. AR that, so however, in-as-much as deduction qua a statutory liability, as salestax, could, in terms of section 43B, be allowed only subject to its payment, had deduction been claimed for the same for the respective years, he could not furnish any satisfactory answer, even as we find a contention to that effect having been r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so. The amount stands shown and accepted as a liability as at the end of the immediately preceding year and, further, has been found by the Revenue as not representing a liability as at the end of the current year. As such, the inference of cessation of liability would only be for the current year, and the assessee cannot be allowed to take advantage of its own mis-statement or misrepresentation, where so. Reference in this context may be usefully made to the decision by the Tribunal in the case of Sajjankumar Didwani (in ITA Nos. 7716 7793/Mum/2012 dated 28/5/2014). 4. The facts in relevant to the second ground (b) are that the assessee entered into an agreement for sale of a residential plot at Vapi with one, Shri Salman Khan, during the f.y.1997-98, receiving ₹ 50,000/- as advance. However, the sale did not materialize and the assessee forfeited the said sum, which however continues to outstand in its books of account as an advance. 5. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. We are completely unable to see as to how thafore-stated primary facts being undisputed and un-rebutted, could the same be considered as the assessee s income when the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not find acceptance in the absence of any substantiation by the assessee, whose business at Vapi had in fact ceased, with its selling its factory premises during the financial year 2006-07. The assessee s accounts disclosed nil expenditure on staff cost. The claim was accordingly disallowed, and confirmed for being so, so that the assessee is in appeal. 8. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. For the same reasons as guide and inform the order of the Revenue authorities, we find no merit in the assessee s claim, which thus is only a bald one. In fact, we do not observe even the name of the relevant employee or any evidence of his working for the assessee having being adduced at any stage. We decide accordingly, dismissing the assessee s relevant ground. 9. The fifth and the last ground (e) of the appeal is with regard to the notional income from house property in respect of residential property at Vapi. The assessee failing to furnish the relevant details of the property, viz. location; built-up area; amenities provided, etc., as well as that qua the rent it could fetch from year to year on being let, the AO estimated the Annual Value (AV) of the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
