Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

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
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2019 (2) TMI 241

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ur consideration:-   "(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the addition towards entrance fees and annual subscription made by the Assessing Officer in the proceedings under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 is beyond the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer ignoring the facts that the Commissioner of Income Tax has set side the assessment order with a direction to decide the case afresh? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is justified in not adjudicating on the merits of the case of entrance fee treated as revenue receipt by the Assessing Officer? (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lso commented that the Assessing Officer had not verified the correctness of the claim for set off of long term capital loss against short term capital gain. In the result, he passed the following order:- "5. It is seen that the assessee had not made any compliance before the Assessing Officer. Before me however, certain details were filed. After considering the submissions of the assessee, details filed and examining the assessment records, it is seen that there was no compliance to any of the notices issued by the Assessing Officer from time to time. Penalty u/S. 271(1)(b) is therefore leviable and the Assessing Officer should have initiated the same. Also, total income was assessed at Rs. Nil against loss of Rs. 2,71,93,000/- claimed b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., the Assessing Officer examined the nature of entrance fees received by the assessee. He rejected the assessee's contention that the amount of Rs. 2.02 crore received by way of entrance fee was a capital receipt and therefore, not taxable. (d) The assessee had filed appeal against the original order of assessment. He also filed appeal against the order passed by the Assessing Officer pursuant to the revisional order passed by the Commissioner. Both these appeals were consolidated by the Commissioner and disposed of by common order. On the question of entrance fees, he held in favour of the assessee and deleted the addition holding that the receipt was capital in nature. Though, this question did not arise out of the original order of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r Section 263 of the Act to annul the entire assessment and required passing of fresh assessment order. However, when the Commissioner, as in the present case, requires the Assessing Officer to carry out inquiries with respect to specified issues, the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to pass fresh order must be confined to such issues, failing which we would be giving the power to the Assessing Officer to make reassessment. 6. Gujarat High Court in similar background in the case of CIT Vs. D.N. Dosani  [2006] 280 ITR 275 (Guj) has observed as under:- "12. The scheme of the Act has provided different powers to different authorities and these are required to be exercised after satisfying the pre-requisite conditions and jurisdicti....