9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1460X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal only if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. In this case, the Appellate Commissioner and the learned Tribunal have arrived at the concurrent factual finding that there was no suppression of sales. There is no question of law, not to speak of substantial question of law. As held by the Supreme Court in Vijay Kumar Talwar v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi [2010 (12) TMI 2 - Supreme Court of India] the general rule is that the High Court does not interfere with concurrent findings of Courts below. - Decided in favour of assessee. - T.C.A. No. 369 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 2-1-2018 - The Hon'ble Ms. Indira Banerjee, Chief Justice And The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abdul Quddhose For the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the IT Act'). The case was, thereafter, selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) of the IT Act was issued on 26.08.2011. It appears that after hearing the assessee, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the IT Act on 28.03.2013 determining the total income of the assessee at ₹ 1,71,13,177, after making an addition of ₹ 2,03,27,768/- towards alleged sales suppression and after disallowance of ₹ 2,09,383/- under Section 94(7) of the IT Act and ₹ 1,85,266/- under Section 14A of the IT Act. 5. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-1, Chennai, hereinafter referred to as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #39; was the first Joint Venture project of the company. In consideration of business exigencies, the assessee had received funding from its sister concern, M/s.Siddharth Apparels P Ltd. (SAPL). The advance was free of interest and it was in consideration of such advance that the appellant had agreed to sell two flats at pre-determined price of ₹ 4,129/- and ₹ 4,000/- per sq.ft. respectively to SAPL. The advance so received had been paid to the land owner on 22.07.2006, within the days of receiving the same from SAPL. The concessional price was to compensate SAPL for the interest free advance. The Assessing Officer was, thus, directed to delete the addition of ₹ 2,03,27,768/-. 9. Being aggrieved, the Revenue appealed to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this Court that an appeal under the aforesaid section shall lie to the High Court from every order passed in appeal by the Appellate Tribunal only if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. In this case, the Appellate Commissioner and the learned Tribunal have arrived at the concurrent factual finding that there was no suppression of sales. There is no question of law, not to speak of substantial question of law. As held by the Supreme Court in Vijay Kumar Talwar v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 673, the general rule is that the High Court does not interfere with concurrent findings of Courts below. 12. We find no reason to interfere with the concurrent factual findi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
