TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1696X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it would not have been possible to execute the project. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has rightly decided the issue in favour of the assessee. - I.T.A.No.999/Mds/2016 - - - Dated:- 26-12-2016 - Shri A.Mohan Alankamony, Accountant Member And Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Judicial Member Appellant by : Mr. Siva Srinivas, JCIT Respondent by : Mr. S.Ramachandran, C.A. ORDER A. Mohan Alankamony, AM:- This appeal is filed by the Revenue aggrieved by the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Chennai dated 27.01.2016 in ITA New No.217/CIT(A)-1 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 250(6) of the Act. 2. The Revenue has raised several elaborate grounds in its appeal, however, the crux of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1963 9500 1,86,48,500 Total (A) 3,63,47,800 Sale consideration stated before the Revenue: Apartment No. Sq.ft Rate in Rs. Total Rs.. F4 1901 4000 76,04,000 G3 1963 4129 81,05,227 Total (B) 1.57,09,227 For the aforesaid reasons, the learned Assessing Officer was of the view that the assessee had suppressed his income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AO was such transaction resulted as suppression of taxable income in response to the differential in the hands of the appellant, to demonstrate which the matter has been discussed in detail in assessment order. The points which was underscored is that the ownership of the above flats was not handed to SAPL, instead they are finally transferred to one Mr.D.Ravikrishnan R. Sandya, Mr. G.Ramprasad Mrs.R.Mathangi. M/s.SAPL, a company incorporated in 1973, having a capital of ₹ 100 lakhs and accumulated profits of 450 lakhs. The appellant is a company incorporated in 2006 and Auro One is the first joint venture project of the company. It is on consideration of business exigencies that the appellant received the funding from SAPL whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eld, hence the plea made by the appellant against the same succeeds. 5. Before us, the learned Departmental Representative stoutly argued by stating that the assessee had deliberated adjusted its sale consideration in order to avoid tax. He further argued by stating that it was a case of suppression of sale in collusion with the related parties and thereby a colourable device to deceit the revenue. Hence it was pleaded that the order of the Ld.A.O may be upheld. 6. The learned Authorized Representative on the other hand argued in support of the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and further submitted that the reason for reducing the price was because of the upfront advance of ₹ 1.06 crores received by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
