TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (2) TMI 1460
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssment Year 2013-14 and the ld. CIT(A)-1, New Delhi dated 12.06.2017 pertaining to Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Since common issues are involved in all these cross appeals, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. ITA No. 5010/DEL/2017 [Assessment Year 2013-14] Assessee's appeal 3. Ground No. 1 relates to the Annual Letting Value [ALV] of unsold flats shown as stock in trade. 4. This issue is no more integra as the same has been decided against the assessee by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ansal Housing and Leasing Finance 354 ITR 180. Accordingly, Ground No. 1 and 1.2 stand dismissed. 5. Ground No. 2 of assessee's appeal relates to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....owed for statistical purposes. 11. Ground No. 3 relates to the addition notional ALV taking market value which is not comparable to closing stock. 12. This ground was not seriously contested by the ld. counsel for the assessee and the same is accordingly dismissed. 13. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part for statistical purposes. ITA No. 5679/DEL/2017 [Assessment Year 2013-14] Revenue's appeal 14. Ground No. 1 has three sub grounds: i) ALV of properties Rs. 28,61,269/- ii) Considered by the ld. CIT (A) as occupied for business purposes iii) 5% increase on ALV Rs. 45,56,555/- 15. Facts on record show that the Assessing Officer has included ALV of certain properties which ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n rent and has been declared under the Schedule Sales and other income of the accounts. Copy of such account was filed before the Assessing Officer. Since no findings have been given in the assessment order by the Assessing Officer, the issue was raised by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A). 23. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee furnished assessment orders for Assessment Year 2011-12 and 2012-13 wherein the Assessing Officer has excluded the properties which have been given on rent for calculation of notional rental value. Following the findings given in Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13, the ld. CIT (A) directed to exclude such properties. 24. Since the ld. CIT (A) has followed the findings of the Assessing Officer himself given....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ividend income of Rs. 10,200/-. Disallowance has been computed at Rs. 6,46,77,024/. 34. Before the ld. CIT(A), it was strongly contended that the assessee has sufficient own funds to make investment. 35. The ld. CIT (A) was convinced after verification and deleted the disallowance. 36. Before us, the ld. DR strongly supported the findings of the ld. CIT(A). 37. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the assessee relied upon the orders of the ld. CIT(A). 38. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of South India Bank Ltd 130 Taxmann.com 178 has held that where the assessee has sufficient own funds, it will be presumed that the investments are made from own funds available with the assessee. 39. As the assessee has own suf....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and without giving any opportunity to the Assessing Officer, the ld. CIT (A) has deleted the disallowance. 46. Per contra, the ld. counsel for the assessee strongly relied upon the findings of the ld. CIT(A). 47. We have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below. There is no dispute that the claim was made for the first time before the ld. CIT(A). It is also not in dispute that neither the ld. CIT (A) called for any remand report nor he has given any opportunity to the Assessing Officer to examine the claim as per the evidences furnished before him. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, we restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer. The assessee is directed to furnish necessary evidence in suppo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fficer on account of employee's contribution to PF. 56. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that the employee's contribution of Rs. 26,76,056/- which was supposed to be deposited on 15.11.2013 has actually be deposited on 23.11.2013. The Assessing Officer, accordingly, made disallowance. 57. Before the ld. CIT(A), it was strongly contended that the amount has been deposited before filing return of income and, therefore, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Alome Extrusions 319 ITR 366 squarely apply. 58. The ld. CIT (A) was convinced with the contention of the assessee and deleted the disallowance. 59. Before us, the ld. DR strongly supported the findin....