Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (2.61 seconds)
Documents citing Cit vs Star Builders on 13 November, 2006

The Acit (Central) Ii, Bhopal vs M/S Signature Colonisers P Ltd., Bhopal on 8 January, 2021

Thus as per the provisions of the Act and relying 'on the judgments of the High Courts referred above I am of the firm opinion that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction of any expenses which has been deemed to be its income u/s 69B. Accordingly the assessee would be entitled a deduction of the addition made u/s 69B towards unexplained expenditure incurred by the assessee (if any) however the addition itself is directed to be deleted this finding remains academic in nature. In view of the above Ground # 4 for A.Y 2012-13 is allowed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Indore Cites 70 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Shilankit Arcade (P) Ltd.,, Ahmedabad vs Department Of Income Tax on 24 January, 2008

The Valuation Officer has, in fact, not given any comparable case. Further, it is seen that Sec, 50C is only for taking the market price for the purpose of capital gain. Unless there is any independent evidence brought out by the AO that some more money has been paid in addition to the value shown in the Regd. Deed, the addition cannot be made. As per the decisions of Hon. Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese Vs. ITO, reported in 131 ITR P. 597-605 & Hon'ble Gujarat Court in the case of CIT Vs. Star Builders, 294 ITR 338. The addition made by the AO on this count was not justified and hence, the AO is accordingly directed to delete the said addition."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Amit Estate Organizer, Anand vs Assessee

2. The first set of four Miscellaneous Applications in MA Nos.329 to 332/Ahd/2008 relate to the assessment year 1995-96 to 1998-99.In these applications it is the contention of the assessee that the observation of the Learned Judicial Member in para-30 of the order to the effect that Section 69C of the Act is clarificatory in nature and will be deemed to be applicable retrospectively and to all matters pending on that day and therefore the assessee will not be entitled to the deduction of the amount added as unexplained expenditure under Section 69C required rectification. The observation is based on the proviso to section 69C which was inserted by the Finance (No.2) Act, 1998 with effect from 1-4-1999.It is now pointed out that after the order of Tribunal, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has decided in the case of CIT vs. Star Builders, 294 ITR 338 and Krishna Textiles vs. CIT 310 ITR 227 that if any amount is added as unexplained investment or expenditure, it has to be allowed as deduction under Section 69C if it represents expenditure allowable in computing the profits of the business of the assessee.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Yog Builders, Kanpur vs Department Of Income Tax

In view of the facts and for the reasons noted above, I hold that the addition made by AO is suffering from lack of sufficient and appropriate evidence/material for this purpose which otherwise also cannot be made as per law laid down in the above referred decisions. I find that for the reasons enumerated above in para-12 of this order from (a) to (g), as also argued by the appellant, deserve merit. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, Ground No. (iii)(a) of appeal is allowed and AO is directed to delete the addition of Rs.5,34,445."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Lucknow Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shradha Enterprise,, Rajkot-Gujarat vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4),, ... on 5 October, 2017

- 5- learned Standing Counsel appearing for the revenue that if an addition on account of unexplained expenditure is made under Section 69-C, then the fact that deduction could not be allowed under Section 37(1) was obvious and automatic then there was no need of amending Section 69-C by adding the proviso which has come into force w.e.f. 01.04.1999, and is relevant to assessment year 1999-2000 onwards and has not been made retrospective in operation. The assessment year under consideration is admittedly 1987-88 to which the effect of this amendment will not be applicable. Thus, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the revenue authorities are not justified in making and/or confirming the disputed addition in as much as even if the assessee did incur expenditure of Rs. 1,92,261/- in purchasing coal, lignite etc. from GMDC, the equivalent debit in the profit and loss account would neutralize each other and no addition could be made. [para 21] ii. Amit Estate Organizer vs. ITO - in ITA No.414/Ahd/2005 (ITAT, Ahmedabad) He further placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Star Builders, reported in [2007] 294 ITR 338 (Gujarat), wherein it was held as under:-
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Panji Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Harihar D. Nima, Ahmedabad vs Assessee

9. On ground No.3, the assessee challenged the addition of Rs.26,633/- on account of unrecorded expenditure incurred on exhibition . Since we have confirmed the finding of the authorities below on this issue on ground No.1, therefore, this addition would remain sustained. The learned Counsel however, relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs Star Builders 294 ITR 338 (Guj) and submitted that if the addition is made on account of unexplained income in investment, that will give rise to the cost and addition will remain zero. However, we may note that since this addition is considered on the issue of estimate of gross profit, therefore, no separate addition is required to be made. AO is, therefore, directed not to take into account the addition of Rs.26,633/- separately.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next