TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (5) TMI 1598
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 10 lacs u/s 133 of the I.T.Act. Neither under the head profits and gains of business nor under the head Income from other sources without considering the section 14 of the I.T. Act which clearly lays down complete integrated code for chargeability of Income under various heads of income. b. That the ld. CIT(A) also erred in law and on facts by not assessing voluntary surrendered income even under head income from other sources i.e. u/s 56 of the I.T.Act which brings in its ambit all residuary incomes which cannot be charged under any of Specified Heads mentioned in section 14 of the I.T. Act i.e. Items A to E. c. That the ld. CIT(A) also erred in law and on facts, circumstances and in law, by not considering actual facts that the cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as been filed on behalf of the assessee, contending that the fee of Rs.5000/- was paid on 25.08.2015, well within the statutory time allowed; that deficiency memo was received on 22.12.2015, pointing out shortfall of Tribunal Appeal fee by Rs.5000/-; that the amount of Rs.5000/- was immediately paid on 23.12.2015; that the shortfall in the appeal filing fee occurred due to inadvertent mis-calculation @ ½% of the assessed income, instead of 1% of total assessed income, as required; that this was a clerical mistake of the staff of the assessee's counsel and it was a bona fide and unintentional mistake and that as such, this delay be condoned. 3. Finding merit in the contentions of the assessee, since the delay involved occurred due to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....osses under sections 70 and 71 of the Act in the case of Kim Pharma (P) Limited. Having considered the said case as also the contrary decisions of the Gujarat and Madras High Courts, the Chandigarh Tribunal noted in para 11 thus: "We are bound to follow the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of M/s. Kim Pharma (P) Limited and following the same, we hold that surrendered income has to be assessed separately as deemed income." 6. In the same case of Liberty Plywood (P) Limited, the Hon'ble Chandigarh Tribunal held that the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of M/s. Kim Pharma (P) Limited did not deal with the issue of setting off of depreciation u/s 32(2) of the Act from the surren....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the case of Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan and Kim Pharma (P) Ltd. Prior to this section becoming effective, the law as laid down by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Kin Pharma was operative. It is, therefore, held that the appellant is not entitled to either set off its business loss from the surrendered income or to set off the unabsorbed depreciation allowance. All the grounds of appeal pertaining to the aforesaid issue, thus, stand rejected." 6. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee has placed reliance on 'Gaurish Steels Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT', 43 ITR (Trib.) 414 (Chd.), in this 'Kim Pharma (P) Limited.' (supra) has been relied on. In 'Gaurish Steels Pvt. Ltd.' (supra), a surrender of Rs.70,000/- was made by the assessee in s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... survey and surrendered as additional income was assessed by the AO, as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. This action was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court; that in 'Gaurish Steels P. Ltd.' (supra), according to the ld. DR, the amount of Rs.21 lakhs which represented discrepancy in cost of construction, was taken as business income; and that this is against 'Kim Pharma (P) Limited' (supra) and therefore, in the contention of the ld. DR, 'Gaurish Steels P. Ltd.' (supra) is per incuriam 'Kim Pharma P. Limited' (supra). 8. We have heard the parties and have perused the material available on record. Apropos the contention of the ld. DR that 'Gaurish Steels P. Limited' (supra), is per incuriam 'Kim Pharma P. Limited' (supra). These are one a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2011, the amount debited on account of building is Rs. 10,00,000/-. As per ledger account, the palace income for the period 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011 has been shown at Rs.4,65,000/-. Now, the AO assessed the amount of Rs.4,65,000/- as business income. This included the receipts amounting to Rs.3,44,000/- for the period from 10.10.2010 to 16.01.2011, as accounted for in the palace income of the assessee in the ledger. This income has been shown on account of letting out of the Marriage Palace for the period from 10.10.2010 to 16.01.2011. As such, as rightly contended. The AO has accepted this income of the assessee as business income. The profit & loss account of the assessee for the period from 04.02.2011 to 31.03.2011. shown Palace income ....