TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 1116
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncome Tax Act, 1961 [herein after referred to as 'Act'] for the AY. 2010-11 vide his order dated 22-03-2013. 2. The only issue in this appeal of Revenue is against the order of CIT(A), deleting the addition made by the AO in respect to difference between AIR details and the transactions disclosed in the income tax returns. For this, Revenue has raised the following five grounds of appeal: "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,38,55,010/- made by the AO. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) failed to consider the fact that the assessee in his statement recorded u/s. 131 of the Act on 11.03.2013 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3,23,10,020/- out of which sales to the extent of Rs. 2,77,10,020/- have been registered by Registered Agreements for sale in the FY. 2009- 10 relevant to the AY. 2010-11, which amply justifies the fact that more than 80% of the project was completed in FY. 2009-10 relevant to AY. 2010-11 and sale consideration has been received and sale agreements have been registered in this year itself, thus proportionate profit should have been offered to tax in view of the decision of Tribunal in the case of Champion Construction Co. Vs. First ITO 1983 (5 ITD 495) (Mum) wherein it was held that when 80% of work is completed, proportionate profit must be charged to tax. 6. The appellant prays that the order of Ld.CIT(A) on the above grounds be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of income and annual accounts of Shri Prithvijeet Rajaram Chavan for the AY. 2011- 12; iii. Copy of the return of income filed by the appellant for the AY. 2011-12 along with the copy of the audited annual accounts; iv. Copy of the part occupation certificate; v. Copies of the ledger accounts of the parties as appearing in the books of the assessee for the AY. 2009-10 and FY. 2010-11; 4.1. The CIT(A) after considering the remand report and additional evidences, noted that the addition made by the AO u/s. 56(2)(vii) of the Act and also alternatively u/s. 28(2)(iv) of the Act, these being advances are not business income or income from other sources. He also noticed that these are merely advances and assessee ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd Profit and Loss A/c of the assessee for the AY. 2011-12, which are enclosed in assessee's paper book from pages 34 to 52 and noticed that the assessee has disclosed profit of 'Harmony' project at Rs.57,14,251/- in the year of completion of project. The assessee has enclosed the statement of total income at pages 34, 35 and 36 of the assessee's paper book. We find that the assessee is promoter of the building 'Harmony' along with the other co-owner Shri Prithvijeet Rajaram Chavan and both as coowner has carried out this construction activity. We find from records that the assessee as well as Shri Prithvijeet Rajaram Chavan has offered the income from this project at Rs.57,14,251/- in each case in respective returns of income for AY. 2011-....