Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2001 (12) TMI 5

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ll practical purposes, both the revision petitions have been considered to be two separate and distinct petitions and even the prescribed fee of Rs. 25 has been paid separately. Merely because, two revision petitions have been disposed of by a common order, it is not open to the petitioner to file a combined petition and pay court fees payable on one petition only. - - - - - Dated:- 13-12-2001 - Judge(s) : V. C. DAGA., J. P. DEVADHAR. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by J.P. DEVADHAR J.-Rule returnable forthwith. The respondents waive service. By consent, the petition is taken up for final hearing. Heard learned counsel on both sides. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated March 30, 2001, pas .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... assessment year 1996-97, the return of income was filed by the assessee on October 31, 1996, declaring total income of Rs. 5,66,56,326 inclusive of capital gains on account of sale of the project to B.P.L. Ltd. On February 26, 1999, the assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 1996-97, determining gross taxable income at Rs. 5,53,33,570. On January 17, 2000, the assessee filed a revision petition under section 264 of the Income-tax Act seeking revision of the assessment order for the assessment year 1996-97 in respect of substitution of indexed cost and also interest under section 234B of the Income-tax Act. It was prayed that the said revision petition be heard at the earliest as the Assessing Officer .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Commissioner of Income-tax was in error in holding that the letter of allotment made to the original investors was not of binding nature of agreement. It was submitted that having made the addition of Rs. 3.56 crores in the assessment year 1995-96 on account of advance money received in the assessment year 1995-96, the Commissioner of Income-tax could not have refused to give consequent relief in the assessment year 199697 when the project was sold to third parties as it would amount to double taxation. It was submitted that unless the assessee refunded the advance "on money", the assessee would not have been able to sell his project to B.P.L. Ltd. free from all charges and encumbrances. Learned counsel for the Revenue, on the other hand, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e by making a declaration under the KVSS has no relevance to the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1996-97 because what was assessed in the assessment year 1996-97 was capital gains arising out of sale of the project. Once it is established that the on money received in cash has been exhausted before the search in January 1995, it is not open to the assessee to contend that the same money was returned to the 17 parties subsequently. It is pertinent to note that in the agreement dated March 29, 1995, entered into by and between the assessee and B.P.L. Ltd. for sale of the property (after the date of search on January 6, 1995, wherein the receipt of on money was admitted by the assessee) nowhere is it mentioned that there is any .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... order impugned in the petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. After the petition was dismissed, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that there is another issue pertaining to substitution of indexed cost of acquisition and interest under section 234B which was the subject matter of the revision petition dated January 18, 2000, and the same has also been dismissed by the aforesaid common order. On a perusal of the impugned order of the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 264 dated March 30, 2001, it is seen that although the revision petition dated September 28, 2000, has been filed as supplementary petition to the original revision petition dated January 18, 2000, for all practical purposes .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates