II. Useful Case Laws:
1. Shri Sunil Bhandari Vs. ACIT, IT Appeal No. 122/JU/2011, Dated: 30-11-2012, ITAT - Jodhpur
Assessee engaged in property trading too can claim exemption u/s 54F
There is no
dispute regarding the source of income of the assessee which is mainly
from the business of purchase and sale of plots/lands. But it does not
mean that such an assessee is debarred from purchasing and holding some
plots/land as capital asset and claim benefit u/s 54F. The entire facts
regarding this aspect go to prove that the assessee had kept the
impugned asset and has earned LTCG, which has been invested in terms of
provisions of section 54F. Accordingly, we are convinced that the action
of the AO does not lack any enquiry in this regard and he has taken one
of the possible views keeping in view the entire facts. The ld. CIT can
have his own view and that may be other possible view. But as we have
discussed above in such situations, the order cannot be treated as
erroneous. Accordingly, in view of our foregoing discussion, we hold
that the A.O. had made proper enquiries and has taken a correct
decision. The ld. CIT cannot revise the order on this aspect.
(Please click here for judgment)
2. CIT Vs. Liquid Investment and Trading Co., ITA No. 240/2009, Date of Order: 12.02.2013, High Court of Delhi
Admission of quantum appeal by High Court shows issue is debatable for levying penalty u/s Sec. 271(1)(c)
Both the
CIT(A) as well as the ITAT have set aside the penalty imposed by the AO
u/s 271(1)(c) on the ground that the issue of deduction u/s 14A of the
Act was a debatable issue. We may also note that against the quantum
assessment where under deduction u/s 14A of the Act was prescribed to
the assessee, the assessee has preferred an appeal in this Court u/s
260A of the Act which has also been admitted and substantial question of
law framed. This itself shows that the issue is debatable. For these
reasons, we are of the opinion that no question of law arises in the
present case.
(Please click here for judgment)
|