FINQUEST FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-3(4), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 733/MUM/2023Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 June 2023AY 2018-1912 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for enhanced cost of acquisition should be examined by the AO, as the settlement under Vivad Se Vishwas occurred after the original assessment. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing a deduction claim for AY 2017-18 based on an incorrect assessment of abatement.

What were the facts?

The assessee sought to enhance the cost of acquisition for capital gains calculation based on a subsequent settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) rejected the claim, citing lack of revised return and documentary evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether a claim for enhanced cost of acquisition can be entertained post-settlement under Vivad Se Vishwas, and whether a deduction claim for AY 2017-18 was correctly dismissed due to abatement.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69B,Section 48,Section 35AC,Section 153A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM & MS. PADMAVATHY S, AM

For Appellant: Shri V. G. Ginde & Kumar Kale
Hearing: 07/06/2023Pronounced: 28/06/2023

Heard together (2 matters)

I.T.A. No.733/Mum/2023
I.T.A. No.734/Mum/2023

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: These are appeals preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals-51, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 16.01.2023, for AY. 2018-19 and AY. 2017-18 respectively.

2.

As per the request of the Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee, first of all, we will adjudicate the appeal for AY. 2018-19 first.

3.

At the outset, the Ld. AR does not press ground no. 1 which is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition of Rs.19,25,000/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO), being disallowance of fees paid to the ROC. Therefore, this ground of appeal of assessee stands dismissed. (AY. 2018-19 & AY. 2017-18) Finquest Financial Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

More judgments on Section 69B

All 1,579 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →