TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 330
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... exemption of Rs. 29 lacs u/s.54 of the Act by rejecting the claim of the assessee to have deposited Rs. 26 lacs in capital gain deposit account and Rs. 3 lacs with West Bengal Housing Board." (B) That the CIT(A) was not justified while ignoring the direct evidence of the capital gain deposit account and application money with West Bengal Housing Board." 3. Apropos this ground, ld A.R. submitted that the Assessing Officer has made addition on account of disallowance of Rs. 26,00,000/- u/s.54 of the Act by observing that the amount was transferred to STDR A/c and no evidence was there that the amount was invested in capital gains account. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition without any basis and discarding the sustainable evidence filed by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....On careful consideration of rival submissions, we are of the considered view that for making claim of exemption u/s.54 of the Act, the assessee is required to deposit before furnishing the return of income, in any bank or institution as may be specified by the Central Government in Official Gazette in the capital gains account. From the certified issued by Branch Manager, State Bank of India, it is discernible that the assessee on 27.3.2010, deposited Rs. 26 lakhs in capital gains but the same was transferred to fixed deposit STDR account No.31110760825. The CIT(A) specifically asked the assessee to submit copy of STDR account but the same was not filed which could establish that the fixed deposit was in the capital gains account. The certi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Bengal Housing Board or any other Housing Board is not sufficient to claim exemption u/s.54 of the Act. Therefore, the authorities below are right in dismissing the claim of exemption u/s.54 of the Act pertaining to claim of Rs. 3 lakhs. Hence, Ground No.1(B) is dismissed. 8. Ground No.3 of appeal reads as under: " That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) is unjustified and unlawful in confirming the order of the AO in making addition of Rs. 5 lakhs on account of foreign trip." 9. Ld A.R. of the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) was not right in confirming the addition of Rs. 5 lakhs on account of foreign trip. Ld counsel submitted that the assessee made foreign trip to Vietnam on the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....C of the Act. Ld D.R. submitted that section 37(1) of the Act clearly provide that the business expenditure or personal expenses are inadmissible in providing freebees to medical practitioner by Pharmaceutical and allied health sector industry. He also referred to CBDT Circular No.4/.2012 dated 1.8.2012. Lastly, ld D.R. submitted that the claim may kindly be dismissed. 11. On careful consideration of rival submissions, we are of the considered view that neither before the lower authorities nor before this Bench, the assessee has filed any cogent and reliable evidence to show that the expenses incurred in Vietnam and UAE tour were borne by the host The CBDT Circular No.5 /2012 dated 1.8.2012 clearly provides that the expenses incurred in p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act dated 11.4.2019 for the assessment year 2016-17 in the case of the assessee and submitted that after considering the contract notes related to future and option, details of paternal agriculture income received from the father and details regarding loans received, sundry creditors and fee receivable observed that the claim of the assessee is found to be correct and no addition is called for in regard to agricultural income. Therefore, rule of consistency should be followed. For this proposition, he relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RADHASOAMI SATSANG vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 193 ITR 321 (SC). 14. Replying to above, ld D.R. submitted that after thorough enquiry, the Assessing Offic....