9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (6) TMI 901X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TICE D.A.MEHTA) (1) The appellant-revenue has proposed following two questions in the appeal preferred under Section 260-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenging order dated 10.09.2008 made by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal): [i] Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in deleting addition of Rs.28,92, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee had entered into an agreement to sell (satakhat) for the total amount of Rs.28,92,750/- in relation to land situated at Survey No.17 (new Revenue Survey No.16), Village Magdalla, admeasuring 24,100 sq. mtrs. This agreement was recovered from business premise of one Shri Arvindbhai D. Patel and Shri Jashmatbhai N. Patel, stated to be the brokers in land transactions, from Flat No.304, Megh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee and had not been sold. Tribunal has thus held that an unsigned document cannot be made basis of an actual transaction. Accordingly, no income arose as a result of such unsigned document. (5) As can be seen from the impugned order of the Tribunal and the order made by the Assessing Officer, it is clear that on the same set of evidence the Assessing Officer has come to the conclu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
