TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal adjusts bank deposit addition, allows set-off, reclassifies capital gain, denies renovation claim</h1> <h3>Shri Jag Mohan Singh Rawat, Versus ITO,</h3> The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal by modifying the addition of Rs. 24,48,500/- related to bank deposits, allowing a set-off of Rs. 2,20,000/- but ... - Issues Involved:1. Addition of Rs. 24,48,500/- on account of deposits in the bank account.2. Addition of Rs. 3,90,530/- on account of capital gains on sale of flat.Summary:1. Addition of Rs. 24,48,500/- on account of deposits in the bank account:The assessee, engaged in software development and data processing, was scrutinized u/s CASS based on AIR information, revealing cash deposits of Rs. 43,66,894/- in two bank accounts. The assessee denied having an account with PNB Asaf Ali Branch and claimed the deposits in PNB Maidan Garhi Branch were from past earnings and savings. The Assessing Officer (AO) added Rs. 24,48,500/- u/s 68 due to lack of evidence. The CIT(A) upheld this, noting unexplained gaps between withdrawals and deposits and absence of evidence for the opening cash balance of M/s Roop System. The Tribunal allowed a set-off of Rs. 2,20,000/- but upheld the addition of Rs. 22,28,500/- due to insufficient evidence supporting the assessee's claims.2. Addition of Rs. 3,90,530/- on account of capital gains on sale of flat:The AO determined a short-term capital gain of Rs. 3,90,530/- from the sale of a flat, rejecting the assessee's claim of long-term capital gain and renovation expenses due to lack of evidence. The CIT(A) upheld this, noting the flat's holding period was less than 36 months based on the conveyance deed date. The Tribunal, however, considered the allotment date and payment schedule, ruling the holding period exceeded three years, thus qualifying for long-term capital gain treatment. The Tribunal directed the AO to compute the gain as long-term after allowing indexation benefits but denied the renovation expense claim due to lack of evidence.Conclusion:The appeal was partly allowed, with the Tribunal modifying the addition related to bank deposits and reclassifying the capital gain as long-term while denying the renovation expense claim.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
