Just a moment...

Top
Help
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Tribunal upholds tax assessment, rejects income enhancement without evidence.</h1> <h3>M/s Shivraj Properties P. Ltd. Versus Dy. CIT, Central Circle 31, New Delhi</h3> The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 16,07,000 based on the District Valuation Officer's valuation but deleted the enhancement of income by Rs. ... Initiation of proceedings under section 153C - property sold at a lesser price - satisfaction as required in law was recorded by the assessing officer being the person searched under section 153A - proof of assessee has received anything other than what has been disclosed - Held that:- It is an admitted fact that while the assessee and Radico Khaitan Ltd. belong to the same group, however, the company M/s Mackson Creations Pvt.Ltd. does not belong to the same group and is an outsider company. No evidence whatsoever was found during the course of search to show that the assessee has in fact received something extra than what has been shown to have been received on account of sale of the property. The assessee also has given justifiable reasons as to why the agreement with Radico Khaitan was not acted upon on the ground that the employees of Radico Khaitan Limited resisted to go to the new place because of inconvenience in transport. Further the A.O. had verified u/s 131 (1) and 133(6) of the Act in case of M/s Mackson Creations P.Ltd. and others according to which they have purchased the property “Corenthem” from M/s Shivraj Properties Pvt.Ltd. in the Financial Year 2009- 10 at ₹ 8.15 crores. The DVO vide his report has also ascertained the value of the property at ₹ 8,31,07,000/- as on 30th October,2009. Under these circumstances and in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search to establish that the assessee has received anything other than what has been disclosed, we do not find any merit in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in enhancing the income of the assessee by ₹ 6,66,93,021/-. Accordingly, the same is directed to be deleted. Applicability of Section 50C - capital gain - value determination of property sold - reference to DVO - property as a capital asset - computation of total income - Held that:- Value determined by the AO is concerned it is an admitted fact that as against the sale consideration of ₹ 8.15 crores the DVO had determined the value of the property at ₹ 8,31,07,000/-. Although the assessee had agreed to sell the property to M/s Mackson Creations Pvt.Ltd. at ₹ 8.5 crores, however, the property was finally sold at ₹ 8.15 crores. No reason whatsoever has been given as to why the property was sold at a lesser price. There is also no reason given by the assessee so as to justify that the value adopted by the DVO is erroneous. Under these circumstances we hold that the provisions of S.50C will be applicable and the value adopted by the A.O. at ₹ 8,31,07,000/- as against ₹ 8.15 crores adopted by the assessee as sale consideration is justified. So far as the argument of the assessee that the property is its stock in trade and therefore provisions of S.50C are not applicable is concerned, we find that the assessee in its computation of total income has declared the income from “Corenthum” as income from house property. Therefore, although the said property has been shown in the balance sheet as stock in trade, but the conduct of the assessee while computing the taxable income shows that the property is a capital asset since rental income is offered to tax from such property as “income from house property”. Therefore the arguments of the assessee that provisions of S.50C are not applicable to the facts of the case is incorrect. In this view of the matter the addition sustained by Ld. CIT(A) is restricted to ₹ 16,07,000/- as determined by the A.O. and the income enhanced by Ld. CIT(A) is deleted. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly partly allowed. Issues Involved:1. Validity of assessment under section 153C read with section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Addition of Rs. 16,07,000 based on the difference in property valuation by the DVO and the sale consideration reported by the assessee.3. Enhancement of income by Rs. 6,66,93,021 by the CIT(A) based on the agreed sale consideration in an unexecuted agreement.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of Assessment under Section 153C read with Section 153A:The assessee challenged the jurisdiction and validity of the assessment under section 153C read with section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It was argued that no incriminating material was found during the search which pertains to the assessee, and no satisfaction was recorded by the assessing officer in the case of the person searched (Radico Khaitan Ltd.) or the assessee before initiating proceedings under section 153C. However, these grounds were not pressed by the assessee during the appeal hearing and were dismissed as not pressed.2. Addition of Rs. 16,07,000 Based on DVO’s Valuation:The Assessing Officer (A.O.) made an addition of Rs. 16,07,000 based on the difference between the value determined by the District Valuation Officer (DVO) at Rs. 8,31,07,000 and the sale consideration of Rs. 8,15,00,000 reported by the assessee. The assessee argued that no evidence of receipt of any unaccounted money was found during the search, and the difference in valuation was less than 2%, which should not warrant an addition. The CIT(A) upheld the addition made by the A.O. The Tribunal found that the property was indeed sold at Rs. 8.15 crores, and the DVO’s valuation was Rs. 8,31,07,000. The Tribunal held that the provisions of section 50C would apply, and the value adopted by the A.O. was justified. The addition of Rs. 16,07,000 was sustained.3. Enhancement of Income by Rs. 6,66,93,021 by CIT(A):The CIT(A) enhanced the income of the assessee by Rs. 6,66,93,021, taking the sale consideration at Rs. 14,98,00,021, which included the agreed sale consideration of Rs. 13.45 crores as per an unexecuted agreement with Radico Khaitan Ltd. and Rs. 1.53 crores incurred on renovation/repair. The assessee contended that the sale agreement with Radico Khaitan was not acted upon due to logistical issues, and the property was eventually sold to M/s Mackson Creations Pvt. Ltd. for Rs. 8.15 crores based on prevailing market prices. The Tribunal observed that no incriminating material was found during the search to indicate receipt of any extra money beyond the recorded transaction. The Tribunal noted that M/s Mackson Creations Pvt. Ltd. was an unrelated third party, and the transactions were duly recorded in the books of accounts. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee’s arguments and directed the deletion of the enhanced income of Rs. 6,66,93,021 by the CIT(A).Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the addition of Rs. 16,07,000 based on the DVO’s valuation was justified and sustained it. However, the enhancement of income by Rs. 6,66,93,021 by the CIT(A) was deleted, as no incriminating material was found to support the receipt of any unaccounted consideration. The appeal of the assessee was partly allowed.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found