Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.33 seconds)
Documents citing Yuvraj Tukoji Rao Puar vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 10 March, 2004

Ito Co Circle 13 (2), vs Assessee on 18 August, 2009

any justification for claiming deduction under section 80-HHC without reducing the amount of deduction 80IB claimed and allowed. The assessing officer had raised a general query relating to the claim of deductions under these sections and assessee had also given the reply in a casual manner. Therefore, the allowance of deduction under section 80-HHC on the gross eligible profits without reducing the amount of deduction 80IB in our considered opinion is without proper examination of the claim and application of mind on the part of assessing officer. Our view is supported by the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Yuvraj v Union of India and another 315 ITR 84. In this case the assessee received a consideration of Rs 12 lakhs on the sale of right to purchase an open plot in Pune and disclosed it as income for the assessment year 1996-97. The Assistant Commissioner assessed the income and passed order u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Deputy Commissioner issued a notice u/s 154 stating that the long term gain on sale of right to purchase an open plot was to be treated as casual income and brought to tax at forty per cent. The Deputy Commissioner passed an order in 2000 stating that he had reason to believe that income of the petitioner had escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 and proposed to reassess the income for assessment year 1996-97. On a writ petition it has been held that the value of the land had not been determined nor the issue relating to whether the income was to be treated as capital gain or casual income been addressed by the assessing officer. He did not apply his mind and failed to record good and proper reasons for passing the order u/s 143(3). On facts, it was not a mere change of opinion in recording reasons for issuing notice u/s 148 by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the assessing officer was justified in issuing the notice u/s 148 of the Act.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Gmr Holdings Private Limited , ... vs Assessee on 11 October, 2011

28. One more judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Yuvraj v. UOI & Anr. [2009] 315 ITR 84 (Bom) was relied by the ld. CIT(DR) wherein the facts were that the value of the land had not been determined nor the issue relating to whether the income was to be treated as capital gain or casual income been addressed by the AO, therefore it was held that he did not apply his mind and failed to record good and proper reasons for passing the order u/s. 143(3). Therefore it was not a case of mere change of opinion and the AO was justified in issuing notice u/s. 148. However, in the present case, the AO issued the questionnaire u/s. 142(1) of the Act and thereafter framed the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act and clearly stated in the body of the assessment order dated 30.12.2005 that all the details and documents sought were furnished by the assessee. Therefore, it cannot be said that the AO did not apply his mind while framing the original assessment, therefore, the notice issued u/s. 148 on the basis of objection of the audit party was merely a change of opinion. In view of the above, the case relied by the ld. CIT(DR) is distinguishable on facts.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bunge Agribusiness Injida P. Ltd ( Now ... vs Assessee on 30 October, 2009

In the case of Yuvraj vs. Union of India, (2009) 25 DTR (Bom) 185,the Court held that the A.O. having merely noted that assessee has sold his right to purchase an open plot and computed total income, as per chart mentioned in the order, without addressing the issue relating to assessability of capital gain of casual income, notice u/s. 148 issued by A.O. after applying his mind cannot be said to be based on mere change of opinion. In the case under consideration, the A.O. passed assessment u/s. 143(3) without going into the issue of shortage of closing stock. Therefore, it could not be said that in the original assessment proceedings, the A.O. accepted appellant's claim and consequently, the reopening on the same issue was on the basis of change of opinion. Though in various cases the Courts have upheld the issue of notice u/s. 148 on the basis of change of opinion also, but in the case under consideration, there was no change on opinion.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1