TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 971X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtionately that all the questions, and particularly whether the impugned transaction relates to transfer of stock-in-trade or capital asset, have been answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. To our mind, when the written documents were perused and with the corroborating materials, the Tribunal rightly concluded that the impugned transaction relates to the business of the assessee and is to be assessed as such under the head “profit and gains of business and profession”. The Tribunal being empowered by law to undertake that exercise, has performed it's duty. We do not see how in such background can the Tribunal's view be termed as perverse or it's order termed as vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... apital gain and it was added to the income for the year under consideration. 6. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai, passed an order dated 30th November, 2012 dismissing the Appeal. He upheld the view of the Assessing Officer to treat the transaction as income for capital gains for the assessment year 2009-2010. 7. Being aggrieved, the Tribunal was approached by the assessee, but in the submission of Mr. Pinto, the Tribunal in the garb of considering the facts in totality, have completely misinterpreted the same. It has taken upon itself the task of re-appreciating and reappraisal of the factual findings though no perversity was established. Hence, the direction of the Tribunal to assess the income resulting from the impu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal are that the assessee, for the year ending 31st March, 2006, disclosed the inventories at ₹ 8.66 crores. For the year ending 31st March, 2007 there was no change and the same figure was disclosed. For the year ending 31st March, 2008, the assessee showed sale of land development rights at ₹ 5,24,27,354/and the cost of land was shown at ₹ 5,21,37,454/. The reason for the sale consideration of ₹ 5.24 crores during the financial year 2007-2008 was disclosed as an MOU with M/s. Kirit City Homes Private Limited dated 27 December, 2007 for the transfer of development rights for a total consideration of ₹ 5,24,27,354/. The necessary entries were passed on 2nd January, 2008, debiting the account of M/s. Kirit City ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ckintrade or capital asset, have been answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. To our mind, when the written documents were perused and with the corroborating materials, the Tribunal rightly concluded that the impugned transaction relates to the business of the assessee and is to be assessed as such under the head profit and gains of business and profession . When the Tribunal noticed such perversity in the concurrent findings, it has but performed its duty as a last fact finding authority. The Tribunal being empowered by law to undertake that exercise, has performed it's duty. We do not see how in such background can the Tribunal's view be termed as perverse or it's order termed as vitiated by any error of l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
