Consultancy fees claimed as business expense-can tax disallowance rest on survey suspicion despite invoices, contracts and bank trail? Appeal dismisse...
Dominant issue 1: Whether unexplained "on-money" from sale of units could be added where search produced loose slips but no corroborative evidence. Reasoning: The tribunal applied the principle in Umacharan Shaw that suspicion cannot substitute evidence and found the AO and CIT(A) relied on assumptions without corroboration; consequence-all on-money additions for the two projects were deleted. Dominant issue 2: Whether deemed rent under s.23(5) is exigible for unsold units. Reasoning: s.23(5) mandates deemed rent after two years from building-use permission and contains no carve-out for pre-enactment projects; absence of evidence of actual letting justified estimate; consequence-the deemed rent addition at 3% was sustained and that ground dismissed. - ITAT
Dominant issue 1: Whether unexplained "on-money" from sale of units could be added where search produced loose slips but no corroborative evidence. Reasoning: The tribunal applied the principle in Umacharan Shaw that suspicion cannot substitute evidence and found the AO and CIT(A) relied on assumptions without corroboration; consequence-all on-money additions for the two projects were deleted. Dominant issue 2: Whether deemed rent under s.23(5) is exigible for unsold units. Reasoning: s.23(5) mandates deemed rent after two years from building-use permission and contains no carve-out for pre-enactment projects; absence of evidence of actual letting justified estimate; consequence-the deemed rent addition at 3% was sustained and that ground dismissed. - ITAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
