Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.52 seconds)
Documents citing Fourth Income-Tax Officer vs S.M. Shafiq Trustee Of Karimia Trust And ... on 5 March, 1993

Income-Tax Officer vs Dr. K. Rami Reddy on 21 July, 1993

The non-disclosure of the factum of construction and investment made does not constitute material fact for purposes of Section 147(a) when no income accrued from investment made in construction, was also sought to be justified by citing the decision of the Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal in ITO v. S.M. Saraf [1984] 20 TTJ (JP.) 159, a photo copy of which is furnished at pages 55 to 59. It is held in that decision that facts which enabled the Income-tax Officer to make investigation cannot also be said to be material facts within the meaning of Section 147(a). It is further held that report of the Valuer cannot constitute material fact for making the assessment. Therefore, re-opening the assessment for not disclosing the factum of construction and investment made in return or for not filing a report of valuer was justified. The facts before the Tribunal in brief are the following. The original assessment for 1972-73 and 1973-74 were completed on 7-9-1974 and 18-3-1976. Property income from self-occupied property was shown for the period from May 1972 when the house was completed upto Diwali 1972 when the assessment year 1973-74 ended at Rs.600 which was accepted by the Income-tax Officer. In the original assessment order for 1972-73 it was stated that the property was constructed during the period from July 1971 to May 1972, the property was having fine marble fittings with tiles and bathrooms. Cost of construction was shown at Rs. 1,32,000 for which details were furnished. No valuation certificate was furnished by the assessee in support of the cost of construction. Since it is a technical matter and since the cost of construction exceeded Rs. 1 lakh, the matter was referred to the Valuation Cell and if any variation is found suitable action will be taken under Section 147(a) separately. The departmental valuer estimated the cost of construction at Rs. 1,69,500. The difference between the disclosed cost and the value adopted by the departmental valuer was felt to be income which had escaped assessment and the Income-tax Officer initiated re-assessment proceedings for both the years namely 1972-73 and 1973-74. In appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner reversed the order of the Income-tax Officer.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 24 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Income Tax Officer vs Dr. K. Rami Reddy. (Dr. K. Rami Reddy V. ... on 21 July, 1993

The non disclosure of the factum of construction an investment made does not constitute material fact for purposes of S. 147(a) when no income accrued from investment made in construction, was also sought to be justified citing the decision of the Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal reported as ITO vs. S. M. Saraf (1984) 20 TTJ (JP) 159, photocopy of which is furnished at pages 55 to 59. It is held in that decision that facts which enabled the ITO to make investigation cannot also he to be material facts within the meaning of S. 147(a). It is further held that report of the valuer cannot constitute material fact for making the assessment. Therefore, reopening the assessment for not disclosing the factum of construction and investment made in return or for not filing a report of valuer was not justified. The facts before the Tribunal in brief are the following. The original assessment for 1972-73 and 1973-74 were completed on 7th Sept., 1974 and 18th March, 1976. Property income from self-occupied property was shown for the period from May, 1972 when the house was completed upto Dewali 1972, when the asst. yr. 1973-74 ended at Rs. 600 which was accepted by the ITO. In the original assessment order for 1972-73 was stated that the property was constructed during the period from July 1971 to May 1972, the property was having fine marble fitting with tiles and bathrooms. Cost of construction was shown at Rs. 1,32,000 for which details were furnished. No valuation certificate was furnished by the assessee in support of the cost of construction. Since it is a technical matter and since the cost of construction exceeded Rs. 1 lakh, the matter was referred to the Valuation Cell and if any variation is found suitable will be taken under S. 147(a) separately. The Departmental Valuer estimated the cost of construction at Rs. 1,69,500. The difference between the disclosed cost and the value adopted by the Departmental Valuer was felt to be income which had escaped assessment and ITO initiated reassessment proceedings for both the years, namely, 1972-73 and 1973-74. In appeal, the AAC reversed the order of the ITO.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Acit Non Corporate Circle 3, Chennai vs Shafiq Mohamed Shah, Chennai on 12 August, 2022

This order of the Tribunal in Shafiq Mohammed Shah (supra) was subsequently followed by another co-ordinate Bench in another co-owner's case in Shri Sathak Ahmed Shaw (supra). Therefore, the two co-ordinate Benches of this Tribunal examined the very same joint development agreement in the case of the co-owners and found that there was no transfer during the year under consideration. In view of the decision of co-ordinate Benches of this Tribunal holding that the transfer in fact took place during the assessment year 2007-08 and not during the assessment year under consideration, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the CIT(Appeals) has rightly followed the order of this Tribunal. Hence, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dcit Corporate Circle 5 (1), Chennai vs Shri Sthak Ahmed Shaw, Chennai on 5 October, 2018

This being so, respectfully following the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of co-owner's case, The I.T.O Vs. Shri Shafiq Mohammed Shah vide order dated 11.05.2017 referred to supra, it is directed that the long term capital gains is taxable only during the assessment year :- 8 -: ITA No.401/Chny/2018 2007-08 and not during the assessment year 2014-15. Consequently, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 4 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1