TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 559
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(Appeals) held interest of D54,49,764/- received by the assessee as its business income and directed allowance of expenditure incurred against such income. 4. Ld. Counsel for the Revenue submitted that ld. Assessing Officer had found the assessee to be an employee of two companies and held that he was not carrying on any business. As per the ld. Departmental Representative, assessee had received interest income from one M/s. Siyat Holding Pvt. Ltd. Contention of the ld. Departmental Representative was that assessee claimed such interest as his business income, but, on the other hand, had not paid interest on funds received from nine parties. As per the ld. Departmental Representative, ld. Assessing Officer had come to a correct conclusion ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Foreign Tour expenses 14,060 Insurance paid 1,079 Meeting Expenses 8,000 Miscellaneous Expenses 17,016 Membership fee paid 25,403 Maintenance charges 14,500 Provided Fund 86,400 Professional tax 2,190 Professional fees 600 Property Tax 71,954 Security Services Charges 12,060 Share Trading Exp. 523 Travelling Exp 2,15,901 Water Charges 600 Water Tax 7,276 The following items were considered separately :- Rent Received 53,44,193 PPF Interest 1,99,853 Salary received 3,96,00,000 Profit on sale of shares - LTCG 69,900 Profit on sale of shares foreign company 1,18,259 Miscellaneous Income 1,670 Dividend received. 7,07,421 In our opinion non charging of interest from few persons to whom assessee had a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee had produced records which demonstrated payment of dividend distribution tax by the concerned companies from which dividends were received by Minor V. Prateek and Minor V.Palak. In our opinion, dividend distribution tax under Section 115O of the Act, having been paid by the companies concerned, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was justified in holding that dividend income received by Minor V. Prateek and Minor V.Palak were exempt u/s.10(34) of the Act. Ground No.3 of the Revenue stands dismissed. 9. Vide its ground No.4, grievance raised by the Revenue is that addition claimed by the assessee u/s.35AC of the Act was allowed to it. Relevant ground is reproduced hereunder:- "The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) decisi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ained unrealized. 12. Per contra, ld. Departmental Representative strongly supported the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 13. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities below. Assessee had clubbed income from house property earned by Minor V. Palak with his income in accordance with Section 64 of the Act. Against the rental income of D54,68,000/-, assessee had claimed deduction of D32,27,156/- as unrealized dues from one Shree Krishna Corpn Limited. Ld. Assessing Officer had denied the claim for a reason that assessee could not demonstrate how the amount remained unrealized. Ld. CIT (A) was of the opinion that assessee was maintaining accounts on accrual basis and hence such cl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xplanation clearly say that amount of actual rent shall not include the amount of rent which a owner cannot realize. The method of computing unrealized rent is set out in Rule 4 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and thus is reproduced hereunder:- 4. For the purposes of the Explanation below sub section (1) of section 23, the amount of rent which owner cannot realise shall be equal to the amount of rent payable but not paid by a tenant of the assessee and so proved to be lost and irrecoverable where-- (a) the tenancy is bona fide; (b) the defaulting tenant has vacated, or steps have been taken to compel him to vacate the property; (c) the defaulting tenant is not in occupation of any other property of the assessee; (d) the assessee....