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>Appellant's Deduction Disallowance Appeal Denied by ITAT for Assessment Year 2007-08</h1> <h3>Sh. Satya Pal Saini Versus Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Circle VI, Pathankot</h3> Sh. Satya Pal Saini Versus Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Circle VI, Pathankot - TMI Issues:1. Disallowance of deduction of Rs.45.00 lacs paid extra for rescinding the sale agreement.2. Addition of one half share in the hands of the assessee.Analysis:Issue 1: Disallowance of deduction of Rs.45.00 lacsThe appellant filed a Miscellaneous Application to decide grounds No. 4 & 5 not addressed in the previous order for the assessment year 2007-08. Ground No. 4 pertained to disallowance of deduction of Rs.45.00 lacs paid extra for rescinding the sale agreement with Sh. Vijay Umat. The AO and the Ld. CIT(A) had rejected this claim. The appellant contended that the amount was paid to rescind the agreement, but the CA of Sh. Vijay Umat denied entering into any such agreement. The appellant's statement indicated repayment of the amount, showing the transaction remained unmatured. The ITAT concurred with the Ld. CIT(A) and dismissed ground No. 4, finding no infirmity in the order.Issue 2: Addition of one half share in the hands of the assesseeRegarding ground No. 5, the appellant disputed the addition of one half share in his hands, arguing it belonged to Sh. Mohit Kumar Garg and Sh. Harjinder Singh. The AO deemed the plea an afterthought and rejected it, citing inconsistencies in the appellant's transactions. The Ld. CIT(A) also dismissed this ground. The ITAT upheld the decision, stating that the additional documents submitted were fresh and not furnished before the AO. As these documents were not registered with the Land Revenue Authorities, the ITAT found no sufficient cause for their delayed submission. Consequently, ground No. 5 was dismissed, and the appeal was rejected.In conclusion, the ITAT dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee regarding both grounds No. 4 & 5 for the assessment year 2007-08. The judgment was pronounced on 20.5.2014 by the ITAT Amritsar.
TaxTMI 