TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (12) TMI 1392
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rred in law and in facts in holding that the directions of the Hon'ble ITAT by its order in I.T.A. No. 2606/Ahd/1998 and 589/Ahd/1999 for the relevant year in deciding the appeal afresh do not entail jurisdiction to him. According to the Ld. CIT(A)-III, Baroda, the jurisdiction could be assumed only if the appellant's application was pending before the Settlement Commission. Since there was no application made by the appellant to the Settlement Commission, no valid and lawful jurisdiction could be exercised by him. The action of the Ld. CIT(A) in holding so is in defiance of the direction of the Hon'ble ITAT and that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have decided the appeals afresh. 2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eloped sometime in the year 1992 and for that purpose, it entered into an agreement with Madhav Organizers Pvt Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "MOPL" in short) appointing it as booking agent and consultant. By virtue of this agreement, MOPL was empowered to negotiate and finalize transaction of purchase of shops/flats and offices being developed and constructed by KPPL. Amounts collected from intending customers comprised of accounted receipts as well as 'on money' receipt. As per agreement entered into with customers, title in the property purchased was to be given by obtaining allotment of shares representing proportionate area of property purchased (for this purpose, the Memorandum and Articles of Association of KPPL was to be a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion of KPPL & MOPL was pending before Settlement Commission and outcome of settlement commission will have important bearing on various additions which have been made in all these cases. It was also contended that ITAT in consolidated order dated 12.09.2005 in case of Arpan Developers, Anya Developers, M/s Yadav Developers and Associate concerns has set aside the issue back to the file of Assessing Officer by observing that since Anya Developers and Arpan Associates filed settlement petition which are duly admitted and order dated 24.04.2003 is made by Settlement Commission. Having considered the said appeals, it was realized that order of settlement commission will have significant effect on the issues of all these appeals. Therefore, ITA....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ference is not before Settlement Commission and there is no question of order by Settlement Commission and therefore matter may be decided. Having considered the same, as Tribunal observed that in the said order in case of Arpan Associates, Anya Developers, M/s Yadav Developers & associate concerns, matter was set aside to the file of Assessing Officer observing that said M/s Anya Developers and Arpan Associates have filed settlement petitions which were duly admitted and the order dated 23.04.2003 had been passed by Settlement Commission. Hence, on similar lines, having heard rival submissions, ITAT has restored the said appeals back to the file of CIT(A) to decide afresh in light of out come of order of Settlement Commission and after giv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Ltd as per the directions of ITAT, Ahmedabad. As the foundation itself was not existing, no valid and lawful jurisdiction could be stated to have got bestowed upon to be exercised by CIT(A) to decide appeals afresh. CIT(A) further observed that order of Settlement Commission in case of Arpan Associates and that has been challenged by assessee before Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat. Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has admitted the same for adjudication. Thus, even the order of M/s Arpan Associates have not reached finality. Moreover, there was no direction that the order in the case of M/s Arpan Associates shall be considered to decide these appeals afresh. It was referred to by ITAT to decide the set of appeals in a similar manner. The se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(a) he has been rsiding in India in nine out of ten preceding years; and (b) he has been in India for at least 730 days in the previous seven years. Thus, if either of the aforesaid conditions re not satisfied a person would be 'not ordinarily resident' in India. Examining the facts of the present case in the light of the aforesaid legal position, in the memo of the revision application, the petitioner has set out the details of his stay in India, which clearly indicate that the conditions precedent for the petitioner to be said to be resident in India in the year under consideration are not satisfied. From the details given the revision application, it is apparent that though the second condition is satisfied, viz., the petitioner has been....