{"id":64596,"date":"2026-09-23T07:04:26","date_gmt":"2026-09-23T01:34:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/shree-yashraj-real-estate-developers-pvt-ltd-v-acit-bom-hc-www-itatonline-org\/"},"modified":"2026-09-23T07:04:26","modified_gmt":"2026-09-23T01:34:26","slug":"shree-yashraj-real-estate-developers-pvt-ltd-v-acit-bom-hc-www-itatonline-org","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/shree-yashraj-real-estate-developers-pvt-ltd-v-acit-bom-hc-www-itatonline-org\/","title":{"rendered":"Shree Yashraj Real Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (Bom.)(HC) [www.itatonline.org]"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

The assessee, engaged in redevelopment of a building known as \u201cGanesh Nivas\u201d, filed its return for A.Y. 2018-19 declaring nil income. During scrutiny, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had entered into various Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreements with existing tenants, having cumulative Stamp Duty Value of \u20b94.24 crore. The assessee explained that the agreements were executed to allot the existing tenants area in lieu of their existing area, free of cost, and that no consideration was received from them. As the assessee failed to respond to the show-cause notices, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 144B by adding \u20b94.24 crore as unexplained investment under section 69. The assessee filed a revision application under section 264 and contended that the transactions were PAAA\u2019s with existing tenants and not sales of immovable properties. Before the Revisional Authority, however, the assessee produced only Index-II and did not produce the PAAA\u2019s, permission from MHADA or other supporting evidence. The Revisional Authority dismissed the revision application for want of supporting evidence. The Bombay High Court observed that, merely on the basis of Index-II, the Revisional Authority could not be faulted for rejecting the application; however, considering the assessee\u2019s submission that it possessed the necessary evidence to substantiate its claim, the Court held that the interest of justice would be served by permitting the assessee to place all relevant material before the Revisional Authority. The impugned revisional order was accordingly directed to be quashed and the matter restored to the Revisional Authority, subject to payment of \u20b91 lakh as costs, with a direction to examine the evidence and pass a fresh order under section 264 after granting an opportunity of hearing. The Court clarified that the order was passed in the peculiar facts of the case, was not to be treated as a precedent, and that it had not examined the merits of the assessee\u2019s contentions. (AY. 2018-19) (Writ Petition No. 3645 of 2024 dt. 27-07-2026)<\/span><\/strong><\/b><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

S.264: Commissioner \u2013 Revision of orders \u2013 Assessment \u2013 Addition under section 69 \u2013 Cost imposed Rs .1 lakh – Redevelopment of property \u2013 Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreements entered into with existing tenants \u2013 Assessee contending that PAAA\u2019s were entered into to allot area to existing tenants in lieu of their existing area, free of cost \u2013 Assessment completed under section 143(3) read with section 144B by adding \u20b94.24 crore as unexplained investment under section 69 \u2013 In revision proceedings, assessee produced only Index-II and failed to produce PAAA\u2019s, MHADA permission and other supporting evidence \u2013 Revision application dismissed \u2013 High Court restored revision proceedings to Revisional Authority to enable assessee to produce complete evidence and fresh order \u2013 Subject to payment of costs of \u20b91 lakh \u2013 Order passed in peculiar facts and not to be treated as precedent. [ S.69, 143(2), 143(3), 144B, 264, 43CB .]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-64596","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-gNS","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64596","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=64596"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64596\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":64597,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64596\/revisions\/64597"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=64596"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=64596"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=64596"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}