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>ITAT upholds reassessment denial under Sec 54F</h1> <h3>Kalyan Prasad Agarwal Versus A.C.I.T., Circle- Bharatpur</h3> Kalyan Prasad Agarwal Versus A.C.I.T., Circle- Bharatpur - TMI Issues:1. Validity of reassessment proceedings and eligibility for exemption u/s 54F of the IT Act.2. Under-declaration of rental income and disallowance of claimed deductions.Issue 1: Validity of reassessment proceedings and eligibility for exemption u/s 54F of the IT Act:The appeal challenged the reassessment proceedings and the denial of exemption u/s 54F of the IT Act. The Assessing Officer reopened the case based on discrepancies in the balance sheet showing ownership of multiple properties. The appellant argued that the reopening was unjustified, citing lack of new material. The ITAT upheld the reopening, noting the balance sheet discrepancies between the relevant years. The ITAT ruled that the reopening was not due to a change of opinion, supporting the Assessing Officer's decision.Issue 2: Under-declaration of rental income and disallowance of claimed deductions:The appellant contested the addition of Rs. 15,420 for under-declaration of rental income. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition, finding the appellant failed to justify the variance in declared income. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the rental income should be assessed based on actual receipts. The claim of service tax liability as a deduction was rejected, as service tax does not impact rental income. The ITAT dismissed the appellant's claim, affirming the addition of Rs. 15,420.In conclusion, the ITAT partially allowed the appellant's appeal for statistical purposes only, directing further investigation into the property ownership claim. The judgment addressed the validity of reassessment proceedings and the under-declaration of rental income, providing detailed analysis and legal reasoning for each issue raised in the appeal.
TaxTMI 