9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 850X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... common, hence, these appeals are being consolidated by this common order for the sake of convenience, by dealing with ITA No. 6122/Del/2016 (AY 2008-09). 2. Since the grounds in all the 03 appeals are exactly similar, therefore, for the sake of brevity, I am only reproducing the grounds raised in the Assessee's Appeal No. 6122/Del/2016 (AY 2008-09) as under:- 1. The action of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Noida in passing the order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the Assessee is unjust, and deserves to be quashed. 2. That his action in not distinguishing between 'Land' & Leasehold Rights in Lend, which actually were received by the Assessee from the New Okhla Industrial Development ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te of allotment of leasehold rights in the financial year 2006-07 is wrong and thus considering the facts of the case, the additions need to be deleted. 8. That his action in taking the COA of the residential plots as 25% of the rates of the Agricultural land, fixed by the state Government, on an estimated basis and as per his whims and fancies is totally baseless and does not stand the scrutiny of Law. 9. That his action in not adjudicating on the issue of the share of the Assessee in the residential plots sold by the Assessee is wrong and not as per the provisions of the law. 10. Appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify and/or withdraw grounds of appeal up to the date of hearing of the appeal. 3. The facts narrated by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st Private Limited vs. ITO; copy of Allahabad Tribunal in the case of Devindraben I. Barot vs. ITO and copy of Kolkata Tribunal in the case of Tejinder Singh. He draw my attention towards the copy of documents filed with Ld. CIT(A) including the Written Submissions at page nos. 13-31 and 32-26 and stated that these documentary evidences alognwith written submission has not been considered by the Ld. CIT(A). He also draw my attention towards the impugned order and stated that Ld. CIT(A) has not commented upon the written submissions filed by the assessee, especially one decision of the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Atul G. Puranik vs. ITO attached in the Paper Book at page no. 44-63. He further stated that also no sufficient opportunity has be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. Amarchand N. Shroff; copy of order of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Greenfield Hotels and Estates P Ltd; copy of order of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Pradeep Steel Re-Rolling Mills P Ltd; copy of order of Pune Bench in the case of Kancast Private Limited vs. ITO; copy of Allahabad Tribunal in the case of Devindraben I. Barot vs. ITO and copy of Kolkata Tribunal in the case of Tejinder Singh. I further find that Ld. CIT(A) while considering the appeal of the assessee has not considered the documentary evidences filed by the assessee before him and also not commented upon the written submissions in his impugned order. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion, that the aforesaid documents needs to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
