|
III. Direct Taxes Case Laws:
1. CIT
Vs. Sri Guru Gorakh Nath Charitable Educational Society, I.T.A. No. 336
of 2013, Date of Order: 05.05.2015, High Court of Punjab & Haryana
Whether
ITAT was correct in allowing registration u/s 12AA, especially when the
family run trust did not submit details of assets and properties that
they possessed as well as the treatment given to the assets of an old
school being taken over by them.
Held No.
The
Tribunal was not justified in allowing the appeal and issuing necessary
direction and should have sent the matter back to the Commissioner for
fresh enquiry. Admittedly, the factum of the additional information
being asked for was never denied by the respondent-Society. In appeal,
the assessee had only raised the issue as to whether the order of the
Commissioner is arbitrary and unjustified and whether the activities of
the Society did not qualify in the nature of charity and the finding had
been based on suspicion and conjectures.
The
additional information being asked for, as such, was never controverted.
It was not contended that the information had been supplied but was not
taken into consideration. The power of the Commissioner to look into
the objects of the Society and the genuineness of the same cannot be
doubted when the basis is of non-supply of information. In such
circumstances, it would be appropriate that the Commissioner undertakes
the exercise afresh, on the basis of the application which has already
been filed, keeping in view the material which can be produced by the
respondent-assessee.
(Please click here for judgment)
2. CIT Vs. Parminder Singh, I.T.A. No. 365 of 2013, Date of Order: 21.05.2015, High Court of Punjab & Haryana
Whether
the ITAT, not being an authority expert in valuation of property, is
right in directing the AO to make addition on estimated basis, ignoring
the expert opinion of the Valuation Officer.
The
question raised for consideration is not questions of law, as such, but
are pure questions of fact. The Tribunal is the final forum for deciding
such issues.
The
Tribunal noticed that the Departmental Valuation Officer had adopted the
CPWD rates rather than the PWD rates and secondly a builder was able to
get material at a cheaper rate, especially when he was constructing a
large number of houses on account of wholesale purchase and also
expected that very little margin were given for the semi-furnished
houses. Accordingly, keeping in mind that `1.05 crores was already
surrendered by both the brothers, the orders were modified by making
further addition of `15 lacs each towards expenditure on the undisclosed
income in case of both the assessees and thus, a benefit of `40 lacs
roughly was given to both the brothers. the Tribunal had rightly granted
the benefit of the margin that some houses were half complete whereas
the valuation had been done for the finished houses and additions were
made accordingly. Thus, the questions which are sought to be raised for
consideration are not questions of law, as such, but are pure questions
of fact. The Tribunal being the final forum for deciding such issues,
has rightly exercised this discretion by adding a sum of `15 lacs each
(Please click here for judgment)
|
New User? 
Subscribe Now