|
III. Direct Taxes Case Laws:
1. Delco India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, I.T.A. Nos. 2925-2926/Del/2013, Date of Order: 16.06.2015, ITAT - Delhi
Where
the provisions of section 292C of the Act are invoked, the AO has to
consider the explanation and documents provided by the assessee before
making the addition on presumption.
Held_Yes
In brief, some loose papers were found and impounded during the
course of Survey from the business premises of assessee. The AO made
addition on presumption that they relate to transactions outside the
assessee’s books of account.
It was
held that the law is well settled that the presumption u/s 292C of the
Act is rebuttable. A statutory presumption can be drawn where any
documents is found in possession of a person in the course of a search
or survey that it belongs to “such a person”. A presumption is also
drawn that the contents of such a document are true. The presumption
having been drawn as per law is required to be confronted and the
documents as per record have been confronted. Whether the onus placed
upon the assessee in a given set of facts is discharged or not has to be
seen from the replies of the assessee based on facts. In the instant
case, the assessee provided sufficient details regarding the entity to
the best of its effort and explain that the alleged computer print-out
found during survey might be of someone who visited the assessee's
office and used the assessee's computer for mail of the account found or
might have left by someone unknowingly. Further, the nature of business
of the assessee is entirely different from the details which were found
during the search. Therefore, in this case the onus lies upon
department to prove that such details belong to assessee. The appeal is
dismissed as the department was failed to establish such fact.
(Please click here for judgment)
2. CIT Vs. Smt. Mina Deogun, I.T.A No. 438/Cal/2008, Date of Order: 20.04.2015, High Court of Calcutta
Whether the rent received from a property belonging to assessee’s
husband is taxable under the head “House Property” and not under “Other
Sources”.
Held_yes
The provision of Section 27 of the Act provides an inclusive
definition of the expression “owner”. An inclusive definition is not an
exhaustive definition. The law permits the situation that where a person
can be the owner of the land and another can be the owner of the
structure as joint ownership unity of title is not required. In present
case, the land admittedly belonged to the husband. He has raised the
building with the joint funds belonging to himself and his wife.
Therefore,
it is considered that the land belonging to the husband has been thrown
into the common stock of joint property between the husband and the
wife. Both of them thus became the joint owners by operation of the
doctrine of blending and admittedly have borne the cost of construction.
Therefore, the income arising out of the property is in fact an income
arising out of house property which has to be taxed u/s 22 of the Act
rather than as an income arising out of other sources u/s 56. Hence, the
court dismissed the revenue appeal.
(Please click here for judgment)
|
New User? 
Subscribe Now