Search Results For: Sashank Dandu


M/s Shah Realtors vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: May 25, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 21, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2012-13
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
'On Money': The fact that the assessee has sold flats at an undervaluation does not mean that he has understated the consideration and earned undisclosed 'on money'. The mere presumption that excess price could have been charged is not a ground for coming to the conclusion that the assessee did charge a higher price. The burden of proving such understatement or concealment is on the Revenue (All important judgements considered)

The case law relied by Assessing Officer in ITO Vs Diamond Investment and Properties ITA No. 5537/M/2009 is not applicable on the facts of the present case. In case of Diamond Investment and Properties (supra), the flats were sold to the related parties was much lower than the price charged from the other parties. However, there is no allegation of related parties’ transaction in the present case. The coordinate bench of Tribunal Neelkamal Realtor & Erectors India (P0 Ltd (2013) 38 taxmann.com 195 held that when the assessee offered an explanation for charging lower price in respect of some of flats sold by it and Assessing Officer without controverting such explanation made addition to income of assessee by applying rate of another flat sold by it, Assessing Officer was not justified in his action. Similar view was taken by another bench of Tribunal in ACIT Vs Rustom Soil Sethna

All India Federation of Tax Practitioners vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: May 4, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 18, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2013-14
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Rule 45 of the Income Tax Rules which mandates compulsory e-filing of appeals before the CIT(A) w.e.f. 01.04.2016 is a procedural and technical requirement. It cannot defeat the statutory right of an assessee to file an appeal. An assessee who has filed the appeal in paper format should be permitted to make good the default and to file an appeal electronically

From the facts of the present case, we gathered that the assessee had already filed the appeal in paper form, however only the e-filing of appeal has not been done by the assessee and according to us, the same is only a technical consideration. The Supreme Court has reiterated that if in a given circumstances, the technical consideration and substantial Justice are pitted against each other, then in that eventuality the cause of substantial Justice deserves to be preferred and cannot be overshadowed or negatived by such technical considerations

Prabhat Gupta vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: December 21, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 9, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10, 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Bogus Purchases: The fact that s. 133(6) notices could not be served upon the alleged vendors and they were not physically available at the given addresses does not falsify the claim of the assessee that the purchases are genuine if the assessee has produced other evidence and made payments through banking channels

Anyhow, after receipt of the information from DGIT(Inv.) Mumbai, the Assessing Officer issued the notice u/s 133(6) of the Act to all the parties but the said noticed were not served upon the said parties. The Assessing Officer also deputed the tax inspector to verify the genuineness of the claim and to know about the existence said 20 parties but the 17 parties were not available at the given address. However, notices served upon the Sampart Steel, Revika Trade Impex P. Ltd., Jindal Corporation but these parties nowhere submitted the required information. Sufficient evidence has been submitted by the assessee before the AO

CIT vs. Mettler Toledo India Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: June 7, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 21, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 92C +/- 5%: The contention that there is an error because mere mathematical calculation shows that the arm's length purchase price as worked out by the TPO falls beyond (+)/(-) 5% range and consequently falls outside the scope of the second proviso to s. 92C(2) cannot be considered if it was not raised before the CIT(A) & ITAT

Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT is correct in directing the Assessing Officer to allow benefit of +/5% to the assessee without considering Explanation (2A) to Section 92C(2) inserted by Finance Act 2012 w.e.f. 1.4.2002, whereby deduction of 5% earlier being allowed by appellate authorities has been explicitly prohibited w.e.f. 1.4.2002 and therefore, the ITAT ought not to have issued such directions to the A.O. as are in contravention of the provisions of the statute

Krishna Enterprises vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 23, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 26, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 50C: If the difference between the sale consideration of the property shown by the assessee and the FMV determined by the DVO u/s 50C(2) is less than 10%, the AO is not justified in substituting the value determined by the DVO for the sale consideration disclosed by the assessee. Unregistered sale agreements prior to 01.10.2009 are not subject to s. 50C as per CBDT Circular No.5/10 dated 03.06.2010

We are also inclined to agree with learned AR Mr. Shashank Dandu that in view of the decision of Co-ordinate Bench in case of Rahul Constructions vs. DCIT (Pune) (Trib.) 38 DTR 19 (2010) ITA No.1543/Pn/2007 since the difference between the sale consideration of the property shown by the assessee and the FMV determined by the DVO under Section 50C(2) being less than 10 per cent, AO was not justified in substituting the value determined by the DVO for the sale consideration disclosed by the assessee

Top