9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 966X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the partner (Shri Vibhishek Pal Singh) reflect on money received. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) Jaipur has erred in rejecting application of percentage completion method adopted by the AO when this rejection means acceptance of loss return of the assessee engaged in construction and sale of residential/ commercial projects. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, ld. CIT(A) Jaipur has erred in ignoring the facts that the two brothers - Shri Ajay Pal Singh and Shri Ajit Pal Singh - were actively engaged in business together in the sister concerns of the assessee firm itself 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition of Rs. 7,57,150/- made on account of difference in valuation of investment. 2.1 At outset of the hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee prayed as to Ground No. 1 and 2 of the Revenue that on similar issue the ITAT Coordinate Bench has decided the issue in question in favour of the assessee vide its order dated 14-03-2013 (assessee's Group case in ITA Nos.73 to 77/JP/2012 and 689 to 690/JP/2012 for the A.Y. 2003-04, 04- 05, 05-06,06-07,09-10, 07-0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10. 4.2 The ld. DR relied on the orders of the AO. 4.3 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. It emerges from the record that on similar issues the Coordinate Bench in assessee's own case has decided the issue in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by following observation. ''19. We have carefully considered the submissions of ld. representatives of both the parties. It is a fact that the said addition of Rs. 76,93,120/- has been made merely on the basis of the DVO's report and considering that the assessee has not fully explained the investment and/ or there is unexplained expenditure. No document or evidence has been brought on record to establish that the assessee has paid any amount over and above the amount entered in the books of account to purchase the said land presently known as Unique Destination. It is a fact that onus is on the Department for making any addition u/s 69, Section 69B or Section 69C of the Act that there is understatement of investment or unexplained expenditure/investment. Only when such burden is discharged by the Revenue, the onus shift on the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts and circumstances of the assessee's case and respectfully following the decision of Coordinate Bench in assessee's own case (supra), the Ground No. 4 of the Revenue is dismissed. ITA No. 149/JP/2014 - Unique Affordable Homes (P) Ltd. ''1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) Jaipur has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,15,60,710/- u/s 145(3) when the assessee is not maintaining quantitative and qualitative stock register. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the fact that the document A-2/51 seized from Shri Navin Bhutani and A-2/19 seized from the director of the assessee company - Shri Vibhishek Pal Singh indicated on money received on flats sold 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) Jaipur has erred in rejecting application of percentage completion method adopted by the AO when this rejection means acceptance of loss return of the assessee engaged in construction and sale of residential/ commercial projects. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, ld. CIT(A) Jaipur has erred in ignoring the facts that the two brothers - Shr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . ITA No. 150/JP/2014 - M/s. Murano Developers (P) Ltd. ''1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) Jaipur has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,74,09,574/- u/s 145(3) when the assessee is not maintaining quantitative and qualitative stock register. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) Jaipur has erred in rejecting application of percentage completion method adopted by the AO when this rejection means acceptance of loss return of the assessee engaged in construction and sale of residential/ commercial projects. 7.1 At outset of the hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee prayed as to Ground No. 1 and 2 of the Revenue that on similar issue the ITAT Coordinate Bench has decided the issue in question in favour of the assessee vide its order dated 14-03-2013 (assessee's Group case in ITA Nos.73 to 77/JP/2012 and 689 to 690/JP/2012 for the A.Y. 2003-04, 04- 05, 05-06,06-07,09-10, 07-08 & 08-09). 7.2 The ld. DR relied on the order of the AO. 7.3 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. It emerges from the record that on similar issues the Coordinate Bench in assessee' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
