TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1977 (10) TMI 48
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e). While filing his return in the status of HUF, he did not include the salary income. The said salary income was, however, included in his return in the status of individual. The assessment of the HUF was completed on 30th June, 1975 and salary income of Rs. 2,975 was included in that assessment. The individual assessment was completed under s. 143(1) on 31st Jan., 1976 on a total income of Rs. 17,000 and Rs. 2,975 as disclosed was included in that assessment. Later on, the assessee made an application under s. 143(2)(a) dt. 15th March, 1976 and claimed that since the salary income of Rs. 2,975 had already been taxed in the hands of the HUF. the same amount should not have been taxed in the hands of the assessee-individual. The ITO did no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he said building was a residential unit and was therefore, entitled to the exemption granted under sub-cl. (1) of the second proviso to s. 23(1). The ITO did not grant the exemption because the building was not utilised for residence but was let out for commercial purposes to two parties, namely, Distt. S.S. Board, Jind and Child Welfare Council, Jind. The ITO relied on the Calcutta High Court judgment in the case of The Calcutta stock Exchange Association Ltd., In re. (1935) 3 ITR 105 (Cal). The assessee's claim was not accepted by the AAC also. 5. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that only requirement under sub-cl. (b) of the second proviso to s. 23(1) was that the building should be a residential unit. The point that he ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lue of the residential unit when it is in the occupation of the owner for purposes of his own residence. I have thus no doubt in my mind that the exemption claimed by the assessee is due to him. This exemption is subject to the condition that the income in respect of any residential unit referred to in sub-cl. (b) of second proviso to s. 23(1) is not a loss. The judgment of the Calcutta High Court The Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd. has no application to the facts of the case. 6. The third ground relates to an addition of Rs. 1,000 in wine account. The assessee claimed expenses of Rs. 2,588. These expenses included Rs. 205 being cost of electric fittings and Rs. 1,389 being miscellaneous expenses for which no bills wore furnishe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Kumar. Ram Lal was staying at Delhi and the assessee's family was staying at Panipat. The withdrawals of Atma Ram and sons from the books of Balimal Nawal Kishore amounted to Rs. 11,656 during the previous year. He submitted that in view of those withdrawals, no addition should have made. the facts pointed out by the learned Counsel for the assessee are not controverted by the Revenue's side. In view of the fact that there are withdrawals for householder expenses from the books of Ballimal Nawal Kishore, I am not inclined to sustain any addition on account of low house hold expenses. The addition of Rs. 3,000 is, therefore, deleted. 8. The next ground relates to the disallowance of professional tax of Rs. 450. This ground would be requir....