Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.22 seconds)Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax Central 3 vs Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. on 24 April, 2023
15. The aforesaid discussion would show that the decision of the Tribunal
is based on factual findings recorded by the CIT(A) with which it agreed. No
material was brought before the Tribunal or before us to disturb the factual
29
findings recorded by the aforesaid authorities. The decision of the - Tribunal
is not therefore open to the challenge as being perverse. Further since the
Tribunal's decision is based on findings of fact recorded on the basis of the
entries made in the books of accounts, no question of law can be said to
arise from the order of the Tribunal on this point. Question NO.5 is therefore
not admitted. This ground is similar to ground No.4 for essessment year
2004-05, 2005-06 and ground NO.6 for assessment year 200708. Facts of
assessee's case are similar to - the facts of Manish Buildwell (P) Ltd.'s case.
In view of this, respectfully following the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional
High Court, cited supra, which is in the case of assessee's sister concern,
we sustain the order of CIT (A). The similar payment collected on behalf of
the DDA and paid to DDA were held to be not taxable in the case of the
assessee and the Hon'ble High Court has held that the factual findings
recorded in the order of the Tribunal has not been dislodged, therefore, the
order of the Tribunal cannot be said to be perverse. The findings of the
Tribunal were recorded on the basis of entries made in the books of account
and no question of law has arisen from the order of the ITAT and Hon'ble
High Court did not admit the question. Since the factual position is the
same, we find no merits in this ground of revenue's appeal which is
accordingly dismissed.
M/S.Kk Rocks & Granites India P. Ltd, ... vs The Dcit, Cen Circle, Tvm, Trivandrum on 24 September, 2018
Referring to different pages of the seized documents, Ld.AO has observed that the group of
the assessee in practice transfer such account of interest into notes of payments and
therefore the amount of collection has to be estimated and he estimated the sum of
Rs.1,25,000/- on account of interest payment on delayed installments in cash
which is not entered into the books of account and in this manner a
sum of Rs.1,25,0001- was added to the income of the assessee. This
issue was also stated to be covered by the decision of the Tribunal in
the group case of DCIT v. KK Enterprise in I.T.A. No. 2787 to
2793/De1/2010 dated 31.l.2012, copy of which is placed at pages
397 to 413 'of the paper book. The relevant discussion is found In
para 10 to 12 and this issue was restored back to the file of
Assessing Officer. The Ld DR was required to examine that as to
whether the facts of that case and the case of the assessee are
identical. ld DR could not point out any difference in the facts. The
relevant observations of the Tribunal while deciding the said ground
in restoring the matter back to the file of the .Assessing Officer are
reproduced below:-
Section 131 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 153A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Sai University Act, 2018
M/S Surya Buildwell (P) Ltd.,, New Delhi vs Acit, New Delhi on 14 November, 2017
relied on the order of Assessing Officer. Learned AR relied on
the order of CIT (A). From the facts of the case, we hold that the
paper seized referred to by the Assessing Officer for making the
addition is a letter to Usha Construction Company by Parmod
Ahlawat requesting for cancellation of plot. The persons
mentioned in the letter are separate entities. This paper also
does not suggest that the amount was refunded to the buyer
after charging cancellation charges by that party and assessee
has received any cancellation charges. The Assessing Officer
has presumed by applying a rate of 25% on all the cancellation
though no incriminating documents have been found during the
search. In absence of any such evidence, no adverse inference
can be drawn which can attract the additions on this count.
6.1 On the similar facts, the ITAT in the case of sister concern
in ITA NO.3062/DeI/2010 in the case of DCIT vs. Manish
Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. vide order dated 22.12.2010 has decided the
issue in favour of the assessee by holding as under-
Acit, New Delhi vs Sh Kamal Kishore Chaurasia, New Delhi on 8 February, 2017
11. Ground no. 8 in the Revenue's appeal for the A.Y. 2007-08 is on
the addition of unexplained investments in property on the basis of
departmental valuer's report. The Tribunal in the case of Shri Kamal
Kishore Agarwal (supra) at paras 35 to 38 held as follows.
1