Case Details

Citation(s)
2006 SLG 3774 2006 SLD 3774 (2006) 285 ITR 67
Gujarat High Court
IT REFERENCE No. 298 OF 1994 NOVEMBER 24, 2005
D.A. MEHTA AND MS. H.N. DEVANI, JJ.

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

Commissioner of IncomE tax1

v.

Nathubhai H. Patel

Law:

Section:

I. Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained investment- Assessment year 1982-83 - Assessee, a leading cardiologist, constructed two floors on existing floor of his residential bungalow - Assessing Officer holding that cost of construction as shown by assessee was very low, estimated cost of construction at high rate and made addition on account of same treating it as concealed income of assessee - Commissioner (Appeals) as well as Tribunal held that cost of construction as shown by assessee was fair and reasonable and deleted addition - Whether since nothing had been brought on record by revenue to dislodge findings of appellate authorities, addition made by Assessing Officer was rightly deleted - Held, yes II. Section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Investment allowance - Assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84 - Assessee was a leading cardiologist installed a heart monitoring machine and treadmill machine in its hospital and claimed investment allowance under section 32A - Whether printing of, functional status/data of heart operation of patient on ECG paper, by combined functioning of heart monitoring machine and treadmill machine can be said to be production of article or thing falling within ambit of section 32A - Held, yes - Whether, therefore, assessee was entitled to investment allowance - Held, yes FACTS-I The assessee was a leading cardiologist who at the relevant time was also running a heart hospital in which there was a special intensive coronary care unit with sophisticated machines. During the assessment year 1982-83, the assessee had constructed two floors on the existing floor of his residential bungalow. The Assessing Officer held that the cost of construction as shown by the assessee was very low. He, therefore, estimated the cost of construction at higher rate and made addition on account of same treating it as the concealed income of the assessee. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the cost of construction as worked out by the assessee was fair and reasonable and thus deleted the addition. The Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). On reference : HELD-I Both the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492