TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (3) TMI 366
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r default. The same were restored while allowing MA Nos. 56/Ind/2007 and 57/Ind/2007 vide order dt. 22nd Feb., 2008'. 4. These were, therefore, refixed for hearing. Since these are the appeals of quantum and the Department's appeals are with regard to the penalty in the same matter in issue, therefore, we propose to decide quantum appeals as under. WTA Nos. 5 and 6/Ind/2005 (Assessee's appeals): 5. Both the appeals by the assessee are directed against common order of CWT(A)-I, Indore, dt. 3rd Nov., 2004, for asst. yrs. 1997-98 and 1998-99. 6. Briefly facts of the case are that according to the assessment order, notices under s. 17(1) were issued for both the years as the assessee did not file the return of wealth. Later on, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....---- 3. Chaudhary Industrial & 1,01,95,350 32,00,000 Investments (MP) (P) Ltd. --------------------------------------------------------- 4. F.S. Kerr & Co. (P) Ltd. Nil 49,00,000 --------------------------------------------------------- 7. The assessee's claim for considering these liabilities was rejected by the AO on the observations that the assessee failed to prove the nexus of debts against the let out property. 8. It was submitted before the learned CIT(A) that the AO did not allow deduction of advance received against the booking of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... & Investment MP (P) Ltd. against construction of the property, which is also proportionately deductible against the market value. The learned CIT(A), however, did not accept the contention of the assessee, because the assessee has been disclosing rental income from such asset and no business income has been claimed. As regards set off of the advance received and claimed by the assessee was also rejected, because the impugned sum was clearly a part payment of the entire consideration in terms of the agreement and was neither an advance nor the earnest money in the nature of debt within the meaning of s. 2(m) of the Act. The appeals of the assessee were, accordingly, dismissed. 9. The learned counsel for the assessee reiterated the same s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unt by which the aggregate value computed in accordance with the provisions of this Act of all the assets wherever located belonging to the assessee on the valuation date, including assets required to be included in his net wealth as on that date under this Act, is in excess of the aggregate value of all the debts owed by the assessee on the valuation date, which have been incurred in relation to the said asset. Sec. 2(ea) of the WT Act defines assets in relation to the assessment year commencing on 1st April, 1993 or in subsequent year means any building or land appurtenant thereto whether used for residential or commercial purpose only for the purpose of maintaining a guest house or otherwise including a farm house situated within 25 kms.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ade on account of inclusion of the value of such assets for the purpose of WT Act are deleted. Since the asset in question cannot be subjected to WT Act, therefore, the alternative claim of the assessee for claiming deduction of the debt under s. 2(m) of the WT Act, would not arise. The same is, accordingly, disposed of being academic interest in nature. 14. As a result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed. WTA Nos. 1 & 2/Ind/2006 (Department's appeals): 15. Both the Departmental appeals are directed against the order of the CWT(A)-I, Indore, dt. 10th Nov., 2005. for asst. yrs. 1997-98 and 1998-99 deleting the penalty under s. 18(1)(c) of the WT Act. 16. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned CI....