TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 2065
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "i) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,27,62,289/- made on account of rejection of exemption claimed u/s 10(38) of the I.T.Act, 1961 as long-term capital gain, despite the fact that the assessee failed to establish the claim with documentary evidences. ii) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing Rs. 78,76,459/- on account of Revenue from Real Estate Business even in the absence of any documentary evidence regarding revenue and expenses of his real estate business." 3. The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that the assessee, engaged in trading of paints & allied products, filed his Income Tax Return (hereinafter, the 'ITR') of the relevant year on 16.10.2016 declaring income of Rs. 42,05,490/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....shares of M/s. Yamini Investment Company Ltd. without bringing any adverse material on the record. The appellant has furnished all the necessary evidences and documents pertaining to contract notes for sale of shares in support of his contention. The appellant has bought the shares from M/s Fidelo Power and Infrastructure Ltd. and sold the same on stock exchange. All the purchases have been made through banking channels and AO did not find any discrepancy in purchase and sale of shares. The AO has reproduced the financial of M/s. Yamini Investment Company Ltd. in the assessment order and it is observed that in F.Y. 2015-16 company has shown revenue from operations at Rs. 16.88 Crore and previous year it was 12.59 Crore. The AO did not raise....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntial report in respect of Yamini Investment Company Ltd. prepared by the Investigation Wing was produced for our perusal to demonstrate that the Investigation Wing had carried out the investigation in the case of Yamini Investment Company Ltd. detailing suspicious transactions including transactions under consideration here. The Ld. Sr. DR argued that the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) that no investigation had been carried out by the Investigation Wing in the case Yamini Investment Company Ltd. was nothing but prima facie based on incorrect facts. Further, he drew our attention to the para 3.3 to 3.8 of the assessment order to buttress his arguments that the AO had rightly treated the long-term capital gains arisen on sale of shares of Yamini ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... I have considered the facts of the case, findings of the AO and submissions of the appellant. The appellant has entered into collaboration agreement with M/s Bestech India Pvt. Ltd. in year 2011 wherein the appellant has provided the part of land along with other land owners on which M/s Bestech India Pvt. Ltd. agreed to build multistoried tower. In lieu of consideration of land, M/s Bestech India Pvt. Ltd. agreed to allocate a certain number of flats in favour of the appellant. The appellant has not offered the capital gain or business income in respect of the flats to be received from M/s Bestech India Pvt. Ltd. The appellant has booked the amount spent on construction by the collaborator in respect of flats belong to the appellant as ad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has been claimed by the appellant in its return of income. It was submitted by the appellant that the Percentage Completion Method as per AS-7 is not applicable in his case since he is neither a construction company nor under any construction contract. Thus, the project completion method can be said to be applicable in the case of the appellant which is rightly being followed. It is again specified that the appellant is following this method of accounting since inception of its real estate business in 2011 and has also been assessed under section 143(3) for the Ay 2012-13. The method of accounting followed by the appellant was duly accepted vide a speaking order for that year. 6.4 It is observed that appellant is following project....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uishable on the facts because those cases were of builder & developer whereas the assessee was neither builder nor developer over the years. He contended that the facts of the case were not properly appreciated by the Ld. CIT(A). He contended that the entire issue needed proper appreciation of facts afresh by the Ld. CIT(A). 6. The respondent assessee was heard as neither anyone attended on his behalf nor was sought any adjournment. 7. We have heard Ld. Sr. DR and have perused the material available on the record. We found merit in the argument/contention/submission of the Ld. Sr. DR that the Ld. CIT(A) had erred in holding that the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department, has not conducted any inquiry in the case of Yamini In....