New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (6) TMI 744 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2016 (6) TMI 744 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT - TMI - 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 dive .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

re Ltd. legally or otherwise was in possession 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 ( P .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ulture land situated in Gandhinagar by a registered 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 ch .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, which represented more than 80% of the sale 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 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

reason why the petitioner being the owner of 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 .....

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