9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (4) TMI 820X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 2006-07. The assessee has taken the multiple grounds but the core issue for our adjudication is the addition made by the A.O. towards sale of the TDR of ₹ 2,67,29,696/-. The assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the construction activity especially Slum Rehabilitation Programme (SRA Scheme) launched by the Government of Maharashtra. In the A.Y. 2006-07 the assessee has undertaken two ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as admittedly, the Slum Rehabilitation Projects undertaken by the assessee were not completed in the A.Y. 2006-07. The A.O. rejected the explanation of the assessee and brought to tax the entire amount as income of the assessee for A.Y. 2006-07. The assessee carried the issue before the Ld. CIT (A) but without success. The assessee also stated before the Ld. CIT (A) that entire sale proceeds of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted the receipt generated from the sale of the TDR cannot be brought to tax. He relied on the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Central I, Mumbai vs. M/s. Chembur Trade Corporation in ITA No. 3179 of 2009 judgement dated 14.09.2011 (unreported) and also the decision of the ITAT Mumbai in the case of ACIT vs. Skylark Building 48 SOT 306 (Mum). The Ld. Counsel submits that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee has offered sale consideration of TDR in question in the A.Y. 2008-09. If the assessee has offered so, then the same should not be taxed in the A.Y. 2006-07. Needless to say the A.O. should give opportunity of being heard to the assessee as per the principles of natural justice. In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this day of 25th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
