9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 324X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsferred to M/s.Prestige Estate Project Private Limited by the firm vide agreement dated 23.12.2005 - The agreement to sell was executed not only by the firm but also by the assessees - the Tribunal rejected the claim of the assessees that they received the amounts not as consideration for transfer of their lands but by way of retirement as partners in the firm – there is no reason to interfere in the order of the Tribunal – no substantial question f law arises for consideration – Decided against Assessee. Validity of notice u/s 148 of the Act – Reopening of assessment – Held that:- The assessee-wife had declared her total income of ₹ 1,37,990/- for the assessment year 2005-06 and it was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act – AO noticed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was right in holding that the appellant transferred the capital asset during the previous year and hence, liable to tax? The appellant in ITA No.405/2013 has formulated the very same questions as substantial questions of law and in addition thereto, framed the following question as substantial question of law:- (C) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon ble Tribunal was right in law in upholding the validity of the notice issued under Section 148 of IT Act for reopening the assessment? The appellant in both the appeals, hereinafter shall be referred to as assessees , or as assessee-husband and assessee-wife . 5. The assessee-husba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the assessee-wife had also received a sum of Rs.2.9 crores during the financial year 2004-05. This information he shared with the concerned Assessing Officer for the assessee-wife. The assessee-wife had filed her return of income for the assessment year under consideration, declaring total income of Rs.1,37,990/- which was initially processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. It is in this backdrop, the assessment order was passed holding that the partnership was not a genuine firm and treated the amount received by both the assessee as capital gain. 7. Admittedly, the assessees did not place on record the original partnership deed or a Certificate of its Registration at any point of time. They claim that though the partnership firm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eceived information from his counter part in ward No.3(2), Bangalore, to the effect that during the course of the assessment proceedings in case of the assessee-husband it was noticed that the assessee-wife had also received a sum of Rs.2,90,00,000/- during the assessment year 2004-05 from Srihari Khoday as sale consideration for transfer of property situated at Sy.No.43, Ittamadu village of Uttarahalli Hobli. It is, on the basis of this information, notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued after recording the following reasons: An information was received from the ITO Ward 3(2), Bangalore vide letter No.AATPB8232E/ITO W-3(2)/09-10 dated 08/04/2009 that during the course of assessment proceedings, for the assessment ye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
