9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 882X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with regard to repayment, the details/documents was examined and it was held that the respondent-assessee had paid Rs.4,52,40,721/- to E-City Entertainment India (P) Ltd. and Taneja Developers & Infrastructures Ltd - Departmental representative was not able to demonstrate any factual error – No document has been filed to controvert the above findings – Decided against the Revenue. - Income Tax Appeal 219/2013 - - - Dated:- 11-10-2013 - Sanjiv Khanna And Sanjeev Sachdeva,JJ. For the Appellant : Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, Sr. Standing Counsel. For the Respondent : Mr. Ved Jain, Advocate. ORDER Sanjiv Khanna, J. (Oral) Revenue in this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short) in respect of asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n relating to second and third floor. He accordingly held that as capital gains was being taxed in the year in question and there being no dispute about the projected cost, the figure of Rs.5,65,72,958/- cannot be ignored. The exact reasoning given by the Commissioner (Appeals) reads as under:- 8.2. During the year under consideration the assessee sold 2nd and 3rd floors. The assessee declared capital gains on the sale of 2nd and 3rd floors as detailed below. Sale consideration Rs.5,67,70,000 Cost of construction of 2nd and 3rd floors Rs.5,65,72,958 1,97,041 8.3. According to the AO the cost of construction was Rs.3,95,84,575/- as per the valuer/architect certificate. Hence ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gone through the documents brought on record and found the contentions of the AR are tenable and there is no case for addition of Rs.1,69,88,383 u/s 69B. 6. The said findings have been affirmed by the tribunal after recording that the departmental representative, who was appearing for the Revenue, could not contradict the said findings. 7. The reassessment order which is subject matter of the present appeal is dated 29th December, 2010. Learned counsel for the respondent has stated that by that time, the project was complete. 8. Copy of the valuation certificates have not been filed before us, to question and challenge the factual finding of the appellate authorities. The Assessing Officer in the present case did not go into the que ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 25 crores and repayment of Rs.3.32 cores. Commissioner (Appeals), on the other hand, came to the conclusion that the Assessing Officer had made an error in reading the 3CD report and has recorded that the respondent-assessee had actually received Rs.4.35 crores. The amounts were received from E-City Entertainment India (P) Ltd. and Taneja Developers Infrastructures Ltd. Similarly, with regard to repayment, the details/documents was examined and it was held that the respondent-assessee had paid Rs.4,52,40,721/- to E-City Entertainment India (P) Ltd. and Taneja Developers Infrastructures Ltd. The said finding of fact has been affirmed by the tribunal. In fact, the order of the tribunal records that the departmental representative was not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
