TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (5) TMI 55
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....two different orders of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Act (Appeals) 2, Chennai dated 31.03.2016 and 28.11.2019 for the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively. In the appeal filed by the Revenue, the following grounds have been raised: 6.1 The learned CIT(A) failed to note that consequent to the relief granted by her, the taxable income has got reduced to Rs.1,15,00,338/-. As in the case of assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12, the learned CIT(A) is not empowered to grant relief beyond the income returned, more particularly when such quantum of income is not taxed elsewhere. 6.2 The learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition to the tune of Rs.2,27,20,347/- made by the Assessing Officer on the ground that this amount r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... due to withdrawal of depreciation on farm equipment and farm related expenditure. 3. From the details gathered during the course of survey and verification of books of account it is noticed that the assessee has purchased lands for companies like ILFS and SRM Energy. As per the details submitted the extent of land purchased and the cost etc. of such purchases and the amount received or receivable from the aforesaid companies are as under: S. No. Name of the company Extent of land in acres Cost of purchase including registration charges etc. Amount receivable from company towards the land Gross profit (Rs.) 1. ILFS - - - - 2. SRM Energy 39.77 1,73,40,903 1,95,85,000* 25,44,097 (*The amount....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s.12,25,89,302 Thus, the excess advance paid by the companies to the assessee has been retained by the assessee itself and has no intention to return the same. Therefore, the same has to be treated as income of the assessee. If the aggregate advance is added to the profit so far declared it works out to Rs.33,66,83,054/- which is less than the profits assessed at Rs.31,39,62,707/-. Hence, the difference of Rs.2,27,20,347/- is also assessed to tax as income of the assessee." 4. On appeal, after considering the submissions of the assessee the ld. CIT(A) has observed that the difference of Rs..2,27,20,347/- has already been considered while computing the profits from the four projects in the above given assessment years and thus, there is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as appeal filed by the assessee in the assessment year 2012-13 is concerned, the assessee has challenged confirmation of net profit of Rs..1,35,97,822/- @ 30% on Rs..4,53,26,072 being sale of lands at Chavadi. During the course of examination of books of account, the Assessing Officer has noted that the assessee has sold plots and recorded the sales in ledger account named as "Plot Sales @ Chavadi Land". The aggregate amount of such sales made during the year between May, 2011 and March, 2012 was Rs..4,53,26,072/-. The assessee did not admit the sales in the profit and loss account. Instead the above amount was transferred to another account named as "Chavadi - Workin- progress A/c" and reflected in balance sheet. When the details of the pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....us, the ground raised by the assessee is partly allowed. 7. So far as appeal filed by the assessee in the assessment year 2013-14 is concerned, the assessee has challenged the exparte order passed by the ld. CIT(A). After following due procedure and considering the submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer has completed the assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act dated 28.03.2016 by estimating the net profit at 30% and accordingly, addition of Rs..67,66,367/- was made. On appeal, since there was no representation from the assessee and by following the decisions in the case of CIT v. B.N. Bhattachargee & Anr. 118 ITR 461 and in the case of late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT 223 ITR 480, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed ....