TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 729
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the CIT(A) has likewise erred in making an addition of Rs. 23,77,816/- (wrongly stated in ground as Rs. 13,90,737/-) being profit on sale of agricultural land. 3. That the CIT(A) has likewise further erred in confirming following adhoc disallowances made by Assessing Officer. (a) Out of Car Expenses Rs. 25,000/- (b) Out of maintenance cost of Officer Equipment Rs. 50,000/- (c) Expenses on Staff Training Rs. 88,400/- (d) Loss on Sale of Asset Rs. 34,679/- 2. At the time of hearing before the Tribunal, the learned counsel for the assessee has not pressed ground no 1 raised in this appeal of the assessee. The same is accordingly dismissed as not pressed. 3. Apropos the issue involved in ground no 2 relating to the taxa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing from the sale of land in the hands of the assessee as long term capital gain. 4. The disallowance made by the A.O. on account of his claim for exemption under section 54 was challenged by the assessee in the appeal filed by the Ld. CIT(A). During the course of appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A), it was submitted by the assessee that the land sold by him being an agricultural land was not a capital asset and therefore, the profit arising from sale thereof was not chargeable to tax as long term capital gain. Documentary evidence in the form of relevant land record was also produced by the assessee to show that the land sold by him was categorised as agricultural land. This documentary evidence filed by the assessee was forwarded....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of two years immediately preceding the date of transfer. He has also not been able to produce any evidence to rebut or controvert the findings recorded by the Ld. CIT(A) in his impugned order that the land sold by the assessee was not fit to use for agricultural purpose. It is thus clear that the user condition to establish that the land sold by the assessee was an agricultural land is not satisfied in the present case and this being so, I find no infirmity in the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition made by the A.O. on account of long term capital gain arising to the assessee from the sale of the said land. I, therefore, uphold the same on this issue and dismiss ground no 2 of the assessee's appeal. 6. As regards the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce cost. At the same time, admittedly there was a failure of the assessee to produce the supporting bills and vouchers for verification of the A.O. Keeping in view all these facts of the case, I am of the view that it would be fair and reasonable to restrict the disallowance made by the A.O. out of maintenance cost of office equipment to Rs. 25,000/-. Similar is the case of the disallowance of Rs. 88,400/- made by the A.O. on account of expenses on staff training which was done on the basis that the total expenditure incurred by the assessee on salary was only Rs. 2,08,142/-. Although the Assessing Officer accepted the fact that training was required to be imparted in the ever changing electronic market, he disallowed the entire expenditure....