Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 Versus J. UPENDRA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD

2015 (4) TMI 832 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

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 assessee during the reassessment proceedings. However, it is required .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s 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 the addition made by Assessing Officer is deleted, the necessary con .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sed 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 appeals are decided and disposed of by this common order. 2. At the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

assessment 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 reassessed the cost of construction and directed to make addition on accou .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

erred 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 aggrieved and dissatisfied with the respective orders passed by the lear .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

gment 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 and order passed by the learned Tribunal passed in ITA Nos.2532 to .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

llate 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 of the Act issued by AO following the provisions available as per .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 available as per explanation 2(b) given below section 147 of the Income 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

t 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 Court, it was found that when the valuation report of the Valuation Of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

terially 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 report can be considered, however, subject to Assessing Officer applyi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s 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 present case, copy of the DVO's report was furnished to the assesse .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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