9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 99X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition on account of capital gain - sale of godown - HELD THAT:- As relying on assessee's own case 2020 (12) TMI 116 - ITAT MUMBAI] and [ 2018 (8) TMI 2006 - ITAT MUMBAI] assessee was merely holding the godown right as an investment in its books of accounts, the cost of such right was in fact forming part of the project cost (Inventory) in the books of SNCML since the project Lodha Supremus was owned and developed by SNCML.assessee was merely holding the godown right as an investment in its books of accounts, the cost of such right was in fact forming part of the project cost (Inventory) in the books of SNCML since the project Lodha Supremus was owned and developed by SNCML - Since, there is no conversion of capital asset into st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s erred in appreciating the fact that the assessee shows in the Balance sheet, the construction expenditure incurred as the Capital Work in Progress. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in appreciating the fact that the assessee cannot escape from offering its profits for taxation merely if it shows the said activity by different nomenclature in the books. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in appreciating the fact that the assessee company made major changes in the Articles of Association by attaching the space in building to be sold to the shares of the company, the action on the part of the assessee company is ultra vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e AO's reasoning as per paras 12.04 to 12.6 of the assessment order. 4. Insofar are grounds no.1 to 5 are concerned, during the course of hearing, both the learned Counsel appearing for the parties agreed before us that the issues arising out of the aforesaid grounds of appeal are covered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee which have been decided by the Co ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in appeals filed by the Revenue namely ITO v/s Kiddepore Holdings Ltd., ITA no.377/Mum./2016, for A.Y. 2012 13, order dated 23rd August 2018 and ITO v/s Kiddepore Holdings Ltd., ITA no.5541/Mum./2017, for the A.Y. 2011 12, ITA no.5542/Mum./ 2017, for A.Y. 2013 14 and ITA no.5543/Mum./2017, for A.Y. 2014 15, order dated 2nd December 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the Ld.CIT(A). Hence, we are of the considered view that the findings so recorded by the Ld. CIT (A) are judicious and are well reasoned. Resultantly, these grounds raised by the revenue stands dismissed. Since the issues for our adjudication are squarely covered by the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal rendered in assessee s own case in an appeal filed by the Revenue cited supra, a copy of which is placed on record, wherein these issues are decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue for the reasons stated therein, consistent with the view taken therein, we uphold the order of the learned CIT(A) by dismissing the grounds no.1 to 6, raised by the Revenue. 5. The issue arising out of grounds no.7 and 8, relates t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It offered the entire profit to tax. The said profit has been taxed in the hands of SNCML (assessee‟s holding company) even by the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC). No part of the profit has been assigned to the assessee. Further, the computation of the cost of the project does not include any payment made the assessee as a contractor. Thus, the presumption of the AO that the assessee acted as a work contractor‟ and thus earned profit is clearly contrary to the facts. 7. Since the issue for our adjudication are squarely covered by the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal rendered in assessee s own case in an appeal filed by the Revenue cited supra, a copy of which is placed on record, wherein these issues are decide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... instant case, the entire project land was owned by SNCML and it was merely the godown right which was assigned to the assessee company. Further, even the cost of such godown right was assumed by SNCML in its estimated construction cost of project which is mentioned in para 4.1 of the Agreement for Contribution towards Construction Cost dated 31.03.2011. Thus the assessee was merely holding the godown right as an investment in its books of accounts, the cost of such right was in fact forming part of the project cost (Inventory) in the books of SNCML since the project Lodha Supremus was owned and developed by SNCML. As per the accounts, the godown right of ₹ 3,25,00,000/- was held as investment in the books of the assessee as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
