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 →

Hemal Bharatsinh Vaghela Versus Commissioner of Income Tax – Gandhinagar

2016 (6) TMI 744 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

Genuineness of payment - diversion of income - Held that:- The petitioner was the owner of the land in question. He executed a sale deed in favour of Kusumben Doshi. As per the sale deed, the petitioner received only ₹ 58.68 lacs by way of sale consideration whereas M/s. Pushpadanta Infrastructure Ltd., as the confirming party, received ₹ 2.95 crores. There is not a word in the sale deed why the majority of the sale consideration was diverted to M/s. Pushpadanta Infrastructure Ltd. 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

of the land due to which such sale consideration had to be diverted to it. The Revenue Authorities, therefore, correctly disbelieved the genuineness of payment to M/s. Pushpadanta Infrastructure Ltd. and treated it as diversion of income. - Special Civil Application No. 8974 of 2016 - Dated:- 10-6-2016 - Akil Kureshi And A. J. Shastri, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr Kirtikant Thaker, Advocate For the Petitioner : Mr Pravin P Panchal, Advocate ORDER ( Per Honourable Mr. Justice Akil Kureshi ) 1. Th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tered sale deed dated 28.02.2011 in favour of one Kusumben C. Doshi. In the sale deed, total sale consideration for the land in question was shown as ₹ 3,54,48,600/-. Out of such sale consideration, however, the petitioner received only ₹ 58,68,000/-. Rest of the amount of ₹ 2,95,80,600/- was paid to one Kolkata based company M/s. Pushpadanta Infrastructure Ltd. by name. All amounts were stated to have been paid through different cheques of dated 28.02.2011 drawn on Indusind Ba .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

consideration, was paid to a third party where the petitioner himself was the owner of land in question. The Assessing Officer, therefore, treated it as a sham transaction and believed that there was diversion of income through such impermissible means. He, therefore, taxed such amount in the hands of the petitioner. 4. The order of assessment was challenged by the petitioner before the Commissioner by filing revision petition under Section 264 of the Act. The Commissioner dismissed the petition .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the land who received only ₹ 58.68 lacs whereas the confirming party who received ₹ 2.95 crores. Inter alia on such grounds, the revision petition came to be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner had earlier entered into an agreement to sale which was duly registered in favour of one Dashrathsinh Waghela. The agreement contained a clause that the sale deed would be executed in favour of such of the parties as the purchaser may desir .....

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