Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (4) TMI 832 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2015 (4) TMI 832 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT - [2015] 377 ITR 383 (Guj) - Penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) - reopening of assessment - Held that:- In the present case, the Assessing Officer made additions with respect to the difference in the cost of construction based upon and/or relying upon the DVO's report in the case of one M/s.Manjusha Estate Pvt.Ltd. from whom, the assessee subsequently got the project. It is true that in the present case, copy of the DVO's report was furnished to the ass .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X



Under the circumstances and in the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the learned Tribunal has committed any error in deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of difference of the cost of construction which was solely based upon the DVO's report. No interference of this Court is called for and the present appeals deserve to be dismissed as no question of law, much less, any substantial question of law arises in the present appeals. Once t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

they are arising out of the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad, D Bench (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal ), however, with respect to the different assessment years and Tax Appeal No.175 of 2015 is arising out of the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal deleting the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act with respect to the transaction for the aforesaid assessment years, all these .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ct (for A.Y.2004-2005). That the Assessing Officer initiated the reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the I.T. Act for the assessment years under consideration solely relying upon and/or based on the valuation report obtained by the Department from the District Valuation Officer, Income Tax Department, obtained in case of one M/s.Manjusha Estate Pvt. Ltd. from whom, the assessee got the project transferred. That the Assessing Officer passed the respective reassessment orders and reasses .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ccount of difference in the cost of construction, the assessee preferred appeals before the learned CIT(A) and the learned CIT(A) dismissed the said appeals confirming the findings recorded by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the DVO while valuating the property had made detailed observations and also considered the submissions made by the assessee on the report of the DVO. However, the learned CIT(A) deleted the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. 2.2. Feeling aggri .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nder Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. That by impugned common judgment and order, the learned Tribunal has allowed the appeals preferred by the assessee and has deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer confirmed by the learned CIT(A) and also dismissed the appeal preferred by the Revenue which was filed against the order passed by the learned CIT(A) deleting the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. 2.3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

given below section 147 of the Income Tax Act? (B) Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 2,85,362/- for assessment year 2002-03 as unexplained investment being the difference in cost of construction? 2.5. In Tax Appeal No.174 of 2015, the Revenue has proposed the following substantial questions of law:- (A) Whether, on facts and in circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in cancelling the notice issued u/s 148 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

al has substantially erred in cancelling the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act by AO and deleting penalty amounting to ₹ 15,35,245/- levied by Assessing Officer u/s 271(1) (c) of the I T Act? 2.7. In Tax Appeal No.176 of 2015, the Revenue has proposed the following substantial questions of law:- (A) Whether, on facts and in circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in cancelling the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act issued by AO following the provisions availa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e in the cost of construction made by the Assessing Officer. 3.1. It is submitted by Shri Bhatt, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of M/s.Manjusha Estate Pvt.Ltd. V/s. The Income Tax Officer reported in 214 ITR 236. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated the fact that in the case of M/s.Manjusha Estate Pvt.Ltd. (supra) before the Division Bench of this Cou .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

counsel appearing for the Revenue that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in observing that on the basis of the DVO's report alone, the Assessing Officer was not justified in initiating the reassessment proceedings. 3.4 It is further submitted by Shri Bhatt, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue that even in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax V/s. Dhariya Construction Co. reported in 328 ITR 515 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the DVO's rep .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he Revenue at length. We have considered and gone through the orders passed by the Assessing Officer; learned CIT(A) as well as the learned Tribunal. 4.1. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present case, the Assessing Officer made additions with respect to the difference in the cost of construction based upon and/or relying upon the DVO's report in the case of one M/s.Manjusha Estate Pvt.Ltd. from whom, the assessee subsequently got the project. It is true that in the pres .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version