TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (3) TMI 1403
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is common order for the sake of convenience. 3. The appellant/assessee has also moved an application along with an affidavit for condonation of delay of 23 days in filing of the appeal pertaining to the A.Y. 1995-96 and 34 days in filing of the appeal pertaining to the A.Y. 2008-09. ITA 66/M/14 for A.Y. 1995-96 3.1 The appellant has challenged the impugned order on the following effective ground:- "The Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming order of Assessing Officer considering consideration received of Rs. 23,69,000 being the share of sale of common Plot of 14 society as Business Income and not treating the same as being sale of Fixed Asset and the same is to be considered for Capital Gain and accordingly the gain there of is to b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he sale consideration of Rs. 23,69,000/- aforesaid, received by the assessee, as income under the head business on the basis of information received from M/s Jai Hind Cooperative Housing Society. 3.5 The assessee challenged the said order before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) after hearing the assessee inter alia dismissed the ground regarding determination of the nature of income of Rs. 23,69,000/-. 4. Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The only grievance of the assessee is that the Ld. CIT (A) has wrongly confirmed the questioned addition of Rs. 23,69,000/- made by the AO treating the same as business income without complying with the directions of the Tribunal. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the CIT(A) does not suffer from any legal infirmity. Therefore, present appeal deserves dismissal. 8. The Ld. Counsel referring the common order dt. 25/11/2011 passed by Mumbai Tribunal in M/s. Suvarna Nagar Coop. Hsg. Society Ltd. vs. ITOMumbai ITA No. 7168/M/08, for A.Y. 1995-96, Nutan Laxmi Co-op Hsg. Society Ltd. vs. ITO ITA 6369/M/09 for A.Y. 1995-96, Vallabhangar Co-op. Hsg. Society Ltd. Vs. ITO, ITA 5863/M/08 for A.Y. 1995-96 and Vithalnagar Coop. Hsg. Society Ltd. vs. ITO, ITA 5864/M/08 of for A.Y. 1995-96, pointed out that the similar common issue was in dispute in the aforesaid cases and the ITAT Mumbai restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for deciding the same fresh as per the direction given by the tribunal in the fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m its members on account of contribution incidental to sale of plot. 6. after considering the rival submissions and perusing the relevant material on record, it is observed that this issue was also restored by the Tribunal vide its order dt. 17th Nov, 2005(supra) passed in first round to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding the same afresh as per the same direction as given on the issue involved in ground No. 1. As already hold by us while deciding the issue raised in ground No. 1, the direction of the Tribunal has not been followed by the Assessing Officer while deciding the issue restored to his file. Accordingly, following our decision rendered while disposing of ground no.1, we restore the issue involved in ground No.2 to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the tune of Rs. 37,32,560/- in respect of TDR premium. Hence, the assessee is in appeal before the tribunal against the impugned order passed by the CIT(A). The assessee has raised the following ground of appeal against the impugned order:- "1. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming of assessing officer considering TDR premium of Rs. 37,32,650/- as taxable without appreciating that TDR premium is exempted as it is governed by the principles of mutuality and hence the addition of TDR premium of Rs. 37,32,650/-may be deleted. 2. Without prejudice to above, the learned Assessing officer erred in treating TDR premium as income from other sources and consequently erred in not allowing expenses claimed by the assessee. " 3. The asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Bench of the ITAT Mumbai has already decided the identical issue in favour of the assessee in appeals ITA No 6346/M/2009, 6347/M/2009 and 6348/M/2009 filed by the revenue against the CIT(A) order for the assessment years 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06 respectively by following the decision of the coordinate Bench passed in ITA No 7452/M/03 filed by the revenue against the CIT(A) order in assessee's own case for the assessment year 2002-03, holding as under:- "9. In the present assessment year, the CIT(A) following the aforesaid order of the ITAT held that assessing officer was not justified in treating the receipt on account of TDR premium as income of the assessee and that the said receipt is not income in the hands of the assessee on the....