TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal dismisses jurisdiction challenge due to retrospective amendment, addresses various additions and deletions in tax dispute</h1> <h3>M/s. Ind Sing Developers Pvt. Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Central Circl-2 (3) Bangalore (Vice-Versa), ACIT Central Circl-2 (3) Bangalore Versus M/s. Ind Sing Developers Pvt. Ltd.</h3> M/s. Ind Sing Developers Pvt. Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Central Circl-2 (3) Bangalore (Vice-Versa), ACIT Central Circl-2 (3) Bangalore ... Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction under Section 153A of the Income-tax Act.2. Addition of unproved debts and credits.3. Addition of unproved loans.4. Addition related to sale of lands and nomination fees.5. Deletion of additions made on protective basis.Detailed Analysis:Jurisdiction under Section 153A:Issue: The assessee challenged the jurisdiction invoked under Section 153A of the Income-tax Act, claiming the mandatory conditions were not met.Judgment: The Tribunal held that due to the retrospective amendment to Section 132 by Finance Act, 2017, with effect from 1.4.1962, the assessee is precluded from challenging the validity of invoking jurisdiction under Section 153A. Consequently, this ground was dismissed.Addition of Unproved Debts and Credits:Issue: The assessee contested the addition of Rs.17.64 lakhs as unproved debts, while the revenue challenged the deletion of Rs.39.47 lakhs out of Rs.57.11 lakhs.Judgment: The Tribunal noted that the difference between the amounts shown in the assessee's books and the creditor's books should not be considered unexplained under Section 68. The addition of Rs.17.64 lakhs was deleted, and the deletion of Rs.39.47 lakhs by the CIT(A) was upheld.Addition of Unproved Loans:Issue: The assessee contested the addition of Rs.51 lakhs related to unproved loans from Mr. Rajendra.Judgment: The Tribunal found that the amount was wrongly posted to Mr. Rajendra's account and should be deleted. The addition of Rs.51 lakhs was thus deleted.Addition Related to Sale of Lands and Nomination Fees:Issue: The assessee and revenue contested various additions related to the sale of lands and nomination fees.Judgment:- Sapphire Infrastructure Transaction: The Tribunal noted the lack of cross-examination opportunity regarding the oral statement of Mr. Kuppendra Reddy and deleted the addition of Rs.24,44,500/-.- Nomination Fees from R. Nataraj: The Tribunal found that the transaction with M/s. Shobha Developers was incomplete and under litigation, and thus, the addition of Rs.7 crores was deleted.- Sale of Land by Nanda Kumar and Narasimha Murthy: The Tribunal directed the AO to consider all related expenditures and only tax the net income. For the 3 acres and 8 guntas transaction, the Tribunal held that the gain should be taxed only upon actual registration of the sale deed.Deletion of Additions Made on Protective Basis:Issue: The revenue contested the deletion of Rs.3,09,40,750/- made on a protective basis.Judgment: The Tribunal upheld the deletion, noting the substantive addition was not based on any seized material and the protective addition was similarly unsupported.Conclusion:The Tribunal provided a detailed analysis for each issue, ensuring that additions were only sustained where legally justified and based on proper evidence. The judgments emphasized the importance of cross-examination, proper accounting, and the completion of transactions before recognizing income for tax purposes.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
