NANCY TRADERS,ULHASNAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1 KALYAN, KALYAN

The Hon'b not only with being heard b facts and grou of the Hon'bl with form no 3 3. The Hon'bl Ld. Assessing 1,77,08,085/ return of inco as well as law Without preju 4. The Hon'bl Ld. Assessing sale of TDR u the fact that in the regula record of the L 5. The Hon'bl Ld. Assessin relating to pu gain, not only in the course the earlier ye department w Assessing Off 6. The Hon'bl Ld. Assessing paid to par appreciating t 7. The Hon'bl Ld. Assessing to partner am the facts of th 8. Without pr that the Hon Assessing Off gain at Rs. Rs.49,88,085 & figures of ITA le CIT(A) has erred in passing an ex-pa hout having granted a reasonable oppo but without having adjudicated upon stat unds of appeal inspite of the same being le CIT(A) [NFAC] having been already f 35 i.e memo of appeal. le CIT(A) [NFAC] has failed in appreciatin g Officer has erred in assessing the inco - as against Rs. Nil disclosed by app me filed, without appreciating the facts of w. udice to above, appellant submits that: le CIT(A) [NFAC] has failed in appreciatin g Officer has erred in treating the profit e under the head capital gain without ap the said transaction was carried out by ar course of business which fact was a Ld. Assessing Officer. le CIT(A)[NFAC] has failed in appreciatin ng Officer has erred in treating the tr urchase and sale of TDR, under the hea y without appreciating the fact that the tra of real estate business of appellant wer ears as well wherein the same were ac which fact too was brought to notic ficer during course of assessment proceed le CIT(A) [NFAC] has failed in appreciatin g Officer has erred in disallowing the rem rtner amounting to Rs. 55,50,000/- the facts of the case as well as law. e CTT(A) [NFAC] has failed in appreciatin g Officer has erred in disallowing the int mounting to Rs.55,68,085/- without ap he case as well as law. rejudice to above grounds, the appellan n'ble CIT(A) has failed in appreciating fficer has erred in calculating the short te .1,40,85,502/-, by allowing the net 5/- (derived by him) without appreciating f case and without considering the f Nancy Traders 2 A No. 4403/MUM/2025 arte order, ortunity of tements of g on record filed along ng that the ome at Rs. pellant in of the case ng that the earned on ppreciating appellant matter of ng that the ransaction ad capital ansactions re done in ccepted by ce of Ld. dings. ng that the muneration - without ng that the terest paid ppreciating nt submits g that Ld. rm capital t loss of g the facts fact, that assuming for an amount of as short term capital gain e from earlier y been allowed 9. Without p submits that Ld. Assessing capital gain appreciating t the fact, that that even if Assessing Off long term cap brought forwa which had n Officer. 10. The appe any of the g appeal. 11. The additions/dis Officer, confir with the prov order passed for fresh adju 2. Briefly stated, partnership firm, file total income at Rs. amounting to Rs.70 assessee was selecte Income-tax Act, 196 with. The Assessing the Act on 28.12.202 ITA r argument sake though not admitted th f Rs. 1,90,73,560/- (derived by Assessi m capital gain) was liable to tax as s even in such a situation the losses brough years were available to be set off which /considered by Ld. Assessing Officer. rejudice to above grounds, the appella the Hon'ble CIT(A) has failed in appreci g Officer has erred in calculating the at Rs.36,22,583/- (derived by him) the facts & figures of case and without co assuming for argument sake though not f an amount of Rs. 36,22,583/- (de fficer as long term capital gain) was liable pital gain, even then in such a situation ard from earlier years were available to not been allowed/considered by Ld. A llant craves leave to add, amend, alter & rounds at the time or before the hearin appellant therefore prays sallowances/variations made by the Ld. A rmed by Hon'ble CIT(A) not being in a visions of law, may please be deleted an d by Hon'ble CIT(A) may please be set a udication and oblige. facts of the case are that t d its return of income on 02.01 Nil after setting off brought ,76,171/-. The return of incom d for scrutiny and statutory no 1 (in short ‘the Act’) were issue Officer in assessment complete 22 made following additions/disa Nancy Traders 3 A No. 4403/MUM/2025 hat even if ing Officer short term ht forward h have not ant further iating that long term m) without onsidering t admitted erived by e to tax as the losses be set off Assessing &/ or vary ng of this s that Assessing accordance d / or the aside back the assessee a 1.2022 declaring forward losses me filed by the otices under the ed and complied ed u/s 143(3) of allowance: