9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1904X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 making protective addition. We find in this clinching factual backdrop that the tribunal s co-ordinate bench s order in assessee s case itself for AY. 2007-08 involving [ 2020 (5) TMI 675 - ITAT HYDERABAD] holds that such a re-opening making protective addition is not sustainable as per case law DHLF Venture Capital Fund [ 2013 (6) TMI 575 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] . We adopt the very reasoning herei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssing the appeal. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that AO erred in reopening the case u/s. 147 without making any assessment u/s. 143 of the Act for the AY 2006-07. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made by the AO in the assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 dt. 24.12.2010 without considering the facts and circumstances. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ering the additional expenditure incurred towards Rock breaking including Levelling and Compound wall construction. 9. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the Land given to the developer is for the development on the rock breaking expenditure which already incurred before transferring the property through development agreement. 10. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated AO erred in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 20 holds that such a re-opening making protective addition is not sustainable as per case law DHLF Venture Capital Fund Vs. ITO [ (2013) 358 ITR 471] (Bom). We adopt the very reasoning herein mutatis mutandis to quash the impugned reopening. All other pleadings on merits are rendered infructuous. 4. This assessee's appeal is allowed in foregoing terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
