TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (10) TMI 1523
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Act'). As common issues are involved, we are proceeding to dispose them through a consolidated order. We begin with the AY 2009-10. ITA No.3321/Mum/2016 (AY-2009-10) 2. To begin with , we refer to the grounds raised by the assessee under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules, 1963, wherein it is stated that the ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the re-opening of the assessment u/s. 147 / 148 of the Act. 2.1. The ld. counsel submits that the re-opening done by the AO, being bad in law, should be quashed. On the other hand, the ld. DR supports the order passed by the ld.CIT(A). 2.2. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on records. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of inc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessing Officer on which basis the impugned notice is issued is specific. There is no ambiguity in the information which would require investigation. The information of accommodation entries has been given by a participant and this is reason enough to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. At this stage, the Assessing Officer is not required to conclusively prove that the reasons in support of the impugned notice establish that the petitioner has taken accommodation entries. This is a matter which would be subject of further investigation during the reassessment proceedings. At that stage it would be open to the petitioner to raise all permissible defences and also to insist on cross examination of the persons who ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le evidence of deliveries like Vajan Kata/transporters bilty etc. to establish that the material had been physically delivered in its premises. In view of the above facts, the AO made an addition of Rs. 2,20,472/-. 3.2. Aggrieved by the order of the AO the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). It is seen that the ld. CIT(A) by following the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Simit Sheth (2013) 38 taxmann.com 385 (Guj.) directed the AO to estimate the profit @12.5% of the purchases made from the disputed parties. 3.3. Before us, the ld.DR submits that as the assessee failed to prove with supporting documentary evidence that materials were actually delivered in its premises, the ld. CIT(A) should have confir....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... stock-in-trade used for purpose of business relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Chennai Properties and Investment Ltd. vs.CIT ,231 Taxman 336. It is stated that the above decision pertains to assessees engaged in the business of letting out properties. 4.1. As stated earlier, the assessee is a builder and developer and at the end of the year it had inventory of stock-in-trade which are not sold and lying vacant of Rs. 12,10,05,508/-. The AO relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Ansal Hsg. Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd., (ITA No.18/1999 dtd. 31/10/2012) and computed deemed income from house property by estimating @8.5% of cost of construction and after allowing the deductions....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., that construction which favours the tax payer must be adopted." In view of the above position of law, we shall follow the decision in Neha Builders Pvt.Ltd.(supra). 4.5.1. We now come to the relevant provisions in the Act. The following sub-section (5) has been inserted after sub-section (4) of section 23 by the Finance Act, 2017, w.e.f. 01.04.2018: "(5) Where the property consisting any building or land appurtenant thereto is held as stock-in-trade and the property or any part of the property is not let during the whole or any part of the previous year, the annual value of such property or part of the property, for the period up to one year from the end of the financial year in which the certificate of completion of constr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4A r.w. Rule 8D of Income tax Rules, 1962. 6.1. The assessee has made investment of Rs. 36,78,500/- in shares of group companies. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO found that the assessee had not maintained separate books of accounts for the sources of exempt income. The funds, management and all the expenses incurred were mixed for both exempt sources as well as taxable sources. In view of the above facts, the AO computed a disallowance of Rs. 18,829/-[Rs.436/- under Rule 8D (2)(ii) and Rs. 18,393/- under Rule 8D(2)(iii)]. 6.2. In appeal, the ld. CIT(A) observed that the reserves and surplus available with the assessee were far in excess of investment made in group entities. By following, the decision in CIT vs. HDF....