ICICI

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Meaning of 'transfer' under section 2 (47) of the Income Tax Act

LinkedIn


Court :
ITAT Hyderabad

Brief :
These Revenue’s and assessee’s cross-appeals for AY.2008-09 arise against the CIT(A)-II, Hyderabad’s order(s) dated 11-11-2014, in case No.0270 / CIT(A)-II, Hyd /2014-15, involving proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act.

Citation :
125/Hyd/2015

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCHES “B” : HYDERABAD
(THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE)
BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND
SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

125/Hyd/2015 2008-09

The
Dy.Commissioner of
Income Tax,
Circle-3(1),
HYDER ABAD

vs

Sri H.Suresh,
HYDERABAD
[PAN: BACPS7997H]

181/Hyd/2015 2008-09

Sri H.Suresh,
HYDERABAD
[PAN: BACPS7997H]

vs

The
Asst. Commissioner
of Income Tax,
Circle-3(1),
HYDERABAD

For Revenue : Shri Rohit Mujumdar, DR
For Assessee : Shri Samuel Nagadesi, AR
Date of Hearing : 04-05-2021
Date of Pronouncement : 13-09-2021
O R D E R

These Revenue’s and assessee’s cross-appeals forbAY.2008-09 arise against the CIT(A)-II, Hyderabad’s order(s) dated 11-11-2014, in case No.0270 / CIT(A)-II, Hyd /2014-15, involving proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’]; respectively.

2. The Assessing Officer noticed during the course of scrutiny that this assessee had admitted NIL income in his return dt.26-09-2008. He therefore went by the assessee’s foregoing admission u/s.131 of the Act to make the impugned additional income addition of Rs.2.90 crores.

3. We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival pleadings and find no merit in either parties’ identical grievance(s). This is for the precise reason that the Revenue cannot be stated to an aggrieved party once the CIT(A) has directed the Assessing Officer to go by the stamp price of the twin immoveable properties received by the assessee in the compromise agreement/settlement deed dt.10-12-2007 with the co-directors as even the corresponding statutory provision i.e., Section 50C also adopts the very price only to be the maximum sale consideration for computing capital gains. We thus decline the Revenue’s instant sole substantive grievance as well as the main appeal ITA No.125/Hyd/2015.

5. These Revenue’s and assessee’s cross-appeals ITA Nos.125/Hyd/2015 & 181/Hyd/2015 are dismissed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.
Order pronounced in the open court on 13th September, 2021.

Please find attached the enclosed file for the full judgement

 

Poojitha Raam
on 22 September 2021
Published in Income Tax
Views : 27
downloaded 6 times
Report Abuse

LinkedIn







Trending Tags