9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 327X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... b Yewale i/b. Rajesh Shah & Co. ORDER P.C. 1] This Appeal challenges the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on 16th September, 2011 in Income Tax Appeal No.3242/Mum/2010. The assessment year in question is 200506. 2] The Appeal was filed by the Assessee challenging the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax. 3] The Commissioner exercised his power under section 263 of the In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nture or development and construction activity jointly undertaken. This is not a investment but an adventure in the nature of trade. The inherent risks in development of the property which was occupied by structures and tenants, would show that the Assessee shared the risk and was involved in the joint development. In such circumstances, the Commissioner concluded that the order needs to be set as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... greement and rightly as nothing but an investment in a ongoing project. Neither the development or construction was at any time taken over by the Assessee either partly or jointly nor was the Assessee in the business of development of immovable properties. The Assessee had made the investment and was to be compensated for the same by way of grant of 10% of right, title and interest in the property ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... developed in phases and the Assessee was partly compensated by giving the share assured under the agreement, later on, the Assessee decided to terminate the agreement and give up all the right, title and interest which vested in him in respect of the property. That was in lieu of payment of a sum of Rs. 3 crores and built up area of 2200 sq. ft. approximately comprising of two flats. The Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
