TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (7) TMI 776
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ement only one party received the entire advance proceeds whereas as per the sale agreement, it should have been divided on pro-rata basis. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by falling to appreciate the fact that as per the sale agreement the sale consideration so received was to be utilized for promoting the objective of the trust. As such the advance received should have also gone to the trust only but this was not done. This again shows the colorable transaction by the assessee to take the benefit of the advance proceeds. 3. That the Ld. CIT CA) has erred in law on facts by not appreciating that the entire transaction is colorable in nature where the assessee has conveniently tried to colour the transaction as that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2008. In compliance to which neither anybody attended nor any reply was filed. On going through the documents filed by the assessee's counsel , AO completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 at a total income of Rs. 75,84,150/- + Rs. 57,500/- Agricultural Income vide order dated 26.12.2008. 3. Against the aforesaid assessment order of the Assessing Officer, Assessee appealed before the Ld. First Appellate Authority, who vide impugned order 26.11.2010 has allowed the appeal of the assesee and deleted the addition in dispute. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned order dated 26.11.2010, Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. At the time of hearing Ld. Departmental Representative has relied upon the order of the Assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....family trust of assessee's family. In other words, the most important issue is as to whether the AO has erred in concluding that the assessee is not a legal owner, while the facts on record point out that assessee is one of the 3 legal owners of the land under sale; the other two being Shri Vineet Goel and Devi Dayal Charitable trust. The AO is totally wrong in assuming and, somehow insisting in the remand report that the assessee is not a legal owner and, therefore, the amount forfeited, if any, would be taxed in the hands of the assessee as income from other sources. The assessee has furnished proof of ownership of this land piece. These documents furnished clearly show that the assessee Shri Vishal Goyal, his brother Shri Vineet Goel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....een received by the assessee as advance in aforementioned negotiations for sale and if those amounts are not returned back; the cost of property would stand reduced by such amount. In other words, when this sale does not materialize and the amount stands forfeited/not returned; and assessee makes another sale in future; then for purposes of computing the gain, cost of acquisition would be reduced by respective amount of advances received and not returned. We further find that Ld. CIT(A) has noted that various court cases clarified this operation of section 51; the most recent and relevant being the case of Mls Travancore Rubber & Tea Ltd reported in 243 ITR 158 (SC). This is further on record that the M/s Devi Dayal Trust has not made any s....