|
II. Direct Tax Case laws:
1. Mr. I.Ifthiqar Ashiq Vs. Income Tax Officer, ITA No.232/Mds/2013, Date of Pronouncement : 11th June, 2013, ITAT - Chennai
For
the purpose of claiming 54F, Commercial property cannot be treated as a
residential property for the reason that rental income from it is shown
as Income from House Property
The
Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bhoopalam Commercial
Complex & Industries (P) Ltd. reported as 262 ITR 517 (Kar), in the
facts and circumstances of the case held that rental income from
commercial complex is liable to be assessed under the head “income from
house property”. Thus, in the instant case the Commissioner of Income
Tax (Appeals) has erred in holding that since the income from commercial
property is assessed under the head “income from house property” the
property is residential.
(Please click here to view the Judgment)
2.
Chandrakant A. Gandhi v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-3,
IT (SS) Appeal No. 594 (Ahd.) of 2012, Date of Order : 04.10.2013, ITAT
- Ahemdabad
Where
Assessing Officer passed penalty order under section 158BFA(2) in name
of deceased assessee and son of deceased was never impleaded as a legal
heir of his father, said penalty order was null and void
Since the
show cause notice for penalty was not issued on the legal heir of the
deceased. Therefore, it cannot be said that non mentioning of the name
of the legal heir and writing of name of the deceased at the top of the
penalty order is merely a clerical error. Where legal heir of the
deceased was brought on record and was impleaded in the proceedings as
legal heir and only mistake is in writing of the name of the deceased on
the top of the order passed by the Assessing Officer, the same shall be
simply a clerical error and shall have no adverse effect on the
proceedings within section 292B. However, if the Assessing Officer has
failed to bring the legal heir on record and the legal heir has not been
impleaded, it cannot be said that it is merely a clerical error to be
saved by the provisions of section 292B. Such an order passed on the
deceased person shall be null and void and has to be quashed. The facts
of the case leave to only conclusion that the order imposing penalty was
passed on the deceased assessee. Therefore, it is null and void.
(Please click here to view the Judgment)
|
New User? 
Subscribe Now