Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.34 seconds)The Coinage Act, 2011
The Registration Act, 1908
Section 2 in The Coinage Act, 2011 [Entire Act]
Pari Mangaldas Girdhardas vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 2 August, 1977
37. Now whether the intention of the assessee was to hold the
apartments as investment or to sell them to earn profit and
whether the conduct of the assesee is that of a businessman or
that of an investor. As regards the intention of the assessee, it is
observed that the assessee had intention of holding the
apartments as investment and leasing it to the tenants to earn
rental income which is substantiated by the documentary
evidences submitted before us in the form of Memorandum of
Association of the assessee company, correspondence letters with
the broker, audited financial statements of the company wherein
the land & building are capitalized and treated as investment and
also the fact that the said asset was held by the assessee for a
very long duration. With respect to the conduct of the assessee
company i.e. the question whether the act of sale of apartments
by the assessee is ‗an adventure in the nature of trade' or ‗income
from capital gains' can be decided in light of the tests laid down by
various judicial precedents. These tests act as a yardstick for
determination and taxability of income.
Section 11 in The Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act, 1970 [Entire Act]
Section 13 in The Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act, 1970 [Entire Act]
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 March, 2006
Decision of Hon'ble Bombay
High Court in case of Lavanya Land Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is also
directly applicable to the facts of the case at hand. In that
particular case, the Hon'ble Court had observed that the
department had not placed on record any evidence to prove that
huge amounts of cash had actually exchanged hands. In the
present case also, there is no material on record to show that
payment of Rs. 20,00,000/- was actually made to a person named
‗Nazir' as mentioned by Mr. Vishal Singh in his statement recorded
u/s 132(4) of the Act which was subsequently retracted.
Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 20,00,000/- made u/s 69C of the
Act by the Assessing Officer and sustained by ld CIT [A] is
reversed and addition is directed to be deleted.
Radhasoami Satsang, Saomi Bagh,Agra vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 15 November, 1991
Further, the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Radhasoami Satsang vs CIT (193
ITR 321) stated that an accepted position in one assessment year
cannot be allowed to be changed in a subsequent assessment year
where the parties have allowed that position to be sustained by not
challenging the order. Further Honourable Bombay High court in
case of CIT V Mahindra Life space Developers Ltd [2013] 34
taxmann.com 83 (Bombay) has held that
"3. So far as question (c) and (d) are concerned, the
Assessing Officer has recorded a finding of fact that on a
similar issue for earlier assessment year 2003-04
Page | 60
ITA Nos. 2004, 2005, 2300 to 2302/Mum/2021
Aurum Platz Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 2015-16 to 2018-19
the income earned from the sale of land has been assessed
to capital gain. The revenue has accepted the order of the
Assessing Officer for assessment year 2003-04. The
Tribunal by impugned order while applying rule of
consistency held that it is not permissible for the revenue
to agitate the same issue when in the earlier assessment
year 2003-04 the same being taxable as capital gains has
been accepted by the revenue. In that view of the matter,
we see no reason to entertain the questions (c) and (d).‖
Central Bureau Of Investigation vs V.C. Shukla & Ors on 2 March, 1998
58. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on
record. The sole matrix of the disputed issue is that whether
addition under provisions of section 69C of the Act can be made
based on a word document found during the course of search
proceedings and statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act in
relation to such word document. It is an undisputed fact that the
word document found on the computer during the course of search
proceedings mention in relation to payment of Rs. 20,00,000/- for
Page | 65
ITA Nos. 2004, 2005, 2300 to 2302/Mum/2021
Aurum Platz Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 2015-16 to 2018-19
purchases. However, the department could not identify the
purpose of payment, the date of making such payment, by whom
such payment was authorized and the identity of person to whom
such payment was purportedly made. There is no evidence placed
on record to corroborate such loose document and to prove that
payment of Rs. 20,00,000/- was actually made. The facts of the
case, are supported by the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court in
case of V.C. Shukla (supra) and Common Cause (A registered
society) wherein the Hon'ble Court had categorically held that even
the entries made in regular books of accounts without independent
evidence, fix a liability upon a person. In the case at hand, the
document relied upon by the department was not even a part of
regular books of account but merely a loose document which did
not even have a date of such transaction which are essential
features of an authentic document. No doubt it is a computer
document so there is no question of any signature or handwriting
, to that extent the argument of the ld AR is rejected. But no doubt
same also needs to be corroborated.