Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4 Versus Hi-Energy Realtors Pvt. Ltd.

2017 (10) TMI 599 - DELHI HIGH COURT

Addition u/s 69B - Assessee acquired 1.65 acre of land in excess for which no value was shown in the books of accoun - whether he benefit in question in any case covered under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession” in view of Section 28 (iv)? - Held that:- Shares were not exchange and there was exchanges of Land in the same locality and the duration of purchase of land and its exchange i.e. four-five months was very short. Furthermore, land rates are never uniform as in the share .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ccepted by the department. - Decided against revenue - ITA 778/2017 - Dated:- 9-10-2017 - S. Muralidhar And Prathiba M. Singh, JJ. For the Appellant : Sanjay Kumar, Advocate for Mr Rahul Chaudhary, Senior Standing Counsel For the Respondent : Mr S. Krishnan and Mr Gaurav Goel, Advocates ORDER 1. The Revenue is in appeal against the order dated 28th February 2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) in ITA No. 3789/Del/2009 for the Assessment Year ( AY ) 2006-07. 2. The questions .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

006-07 was completed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the Act ) on 26th December 2008 on total income of ₹ 15,87,03,349/- against return income of ₹ 6,55,453/-. 4. The reasons for the above addition was that the Assessee had shown purchase of land of ₹ 40,36,91,100/-. The documents filed by the Assessee show that the Assessee had acquired 17.81 acres of land at Ullawas and Behrampur villages in exchange for 16.16 acres of land at Badshahpur village. 5. Accordi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

a group company of the Assessee, viz. Golden View Builders Pvt. Ltd., wherein the average rate per acre was higher in Ullawas village (Rs. 2,44,68,000/- per acre) as compared to Behrampur village (Rs. 1,68,78,000/- per acre). The differential amount, according to the AO, had been withheld by the Assessee and accordingly the aforementioned addition was made by invoking Section 69B of the Act. 7. The Assessee then went in appeal before the Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) [ CIT (A) ] who by 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

der statement of consideration. It has been further held that to throw the burden of showing that there is no understatement of the consideration on the appellant would be to case an impossible burden on him to establish a negative, namely, that he did not receive any consideration beyond that declared by him. A similar view has been taken in CIT Vs Sivhakant Co. Pvt. Ltd. 159 ITR 71. The sum and substance of the citations is that the consideration declared by be appellant has to be accepted by .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

l), it was held that material not being present to counter the figure of actual investment as per books, no addition under Section 69B could have been made. In CIT Vs Lalit Bhasin 147 Taxman 619 (Del), when the purchase was not verified from the stock exchange or from the seller, it was held that addition without evidence in support of that, would be an addition on the basis of conjecture and nothing else. In Shankarlal Nebhulal (HUF) Vs DCIT (2004) 2 SOT 671 (Ahd), it was held that there could .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on 28(iv) of the Act. Repelling this contention, the CIT (A) held as under: (h) The crux of the issue is whether the appellant receive more in exchange, which could have been taxable u/s 28(iv) and whether the excess was funded from outside the books. Facts show that 16.16 acres of land at Badsahpur was exchanged for 17.8 1 acres of land Behrampur/Ullawas. It means receipt of 1.1 acres for every one acre exchanged. As to why 0.1 acres in excess for every one acre of exchange was agreed upon to b .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

demand and supply, locational advantage, proximity to public facilities, infrastructure, the determination of fair value by the appellant of land at Behrampur and Ullawas at the same rate 9after adjustment for locational advantage and dispersed nature of holding) could not have been faulted. Parity in the market rates and the rate determined by the stamp valuation authorities at the two locations is given more so when evidences are not on record to indicate that the appellant paid more as agains .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version