TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 46
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2016-17 dated 23.02.2017 against the order of assessment passed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") dated 13.03.2015 by the Assessing Officer, DCIT, Circle-23(1), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "ld. AO"). 2. The Ground Nos. 2 and 3 raised by the assessee is challenging the confirmation of the action of Learned AO by the Learned CITA regarding the disallowance of Rs 64,72,52,645/- on account of loss on Amritsar project written off. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The assessee company is engaged in the business of real estate and had undertaken Amritsar project as one of the real estate projects in the ordinary course of its business. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The amended miscellaneous application was also dismissed by this Tribunal in MA No. 233/Del/2018 dated 9.11.2022. The assessee filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court against the dismissal of miscellaneous applications by this Tribunal. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide its order dated 31-1-2023 directed the assessee to file a substantive appeal both against the final order of the Tribunal as well as the disposal of two miscellaneous applications by the Tribunal. With these directions, the Writ petitions of the assessee were dismissed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. Later appeal was preferred before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court which was numbered as ITA 132/2023. This appeal was disposed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the said loss. The thrust of the lower authorities was that the said loss has not crystallized in the year under consideration and that the said loss is capital in nature and hence the said loss was disallowed. 5. The assessee submitted that there was a settlement agreement / arbitration award dated 26-04-2007 passed by the Arbitrator in respect of the disputes between Shri K N Shukla and his group companies and Shri Anil Jain and his group companies. By virtue of the said settlement agreement / arbitration award, the pre-emptive rights and / or the rights, title and interest in land situated at revenue village of Manawala, Rachita, Bishramur and Chita kalan, all coming under the district of Amritsar, Punjab were to be transferred to S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bond on 11-1-2011. 7. Parallely on 16-1-2010, a police complaint was filed by M/s Nitishree Infrastructure Limited ( now known as M/s Shourya Towers Private Limited - assessee herein) against Shri K.N. Shukla and his wife Smt Meenu Shukla for not honouring the cheque issued and criminal intimidation. On 20-7-2012, a compromise deed was finally executed between Shri K.N. Shukla and Shri Anil Jain and all the matters and disputes were put to rest. In the said compromise deed, the rights and interests of the property situated at Amritsar were transferred to Shri K.N. Shukla and his group companies, whereas the rights and interests of the property situated at Jalandhar were transferred to Shri Anil Jain and his group companies. On this date,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....would only be revenue loss. Hence the second objection raised by the lower authorities to disallow the loss is hereby rejected. 8. We find that the lower authorities had raised the first objection that the loss on Amritsar Project had arose to the assessee in Assessment Year 2010-11. This is based on the dismissal of the order by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court vide order dated 14-7-2009 as narrated supra. We find that the lower authorities were of the opinion that the entire dispute stood resolved between Shri K N Shukla group and Shri Anil Jain group in Assessment Year 2010-11 itself, which is factually incorrect. It could be seen that even after the arbitration award dated 26-4-2007, the disputes between the parties remained a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (SC) wherein it was held that the revenue should not have any grievance when the rate of tax remained the same in the year under consideration, in the earlier year and in the subsequent year and thereby making the entire dispute raised by the revenue academic. 9. Similar view was also taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Dinesh Kumar Goel reported in 331 ITR 10 (Del) wherein it was held as under:- "26. Though our discussion on the issue is complete, the parting comments need to be made. The receipts relate to the unexecuted packages, which are not shown in the instant year would be shown in the succeeding year. Rate of tax in respect of companies remains the same in all these years. Therefore, the Revenue....