Loading ITAT cases…
111 orders · Page 1 of 3
The Tribunal held that unaccounted profit from 'on-money' receipts should be taxed in the year the sale deed is executed, not when the 'on-money' was received. They dismissed the revenue's grounds on this matter.
The tribunal consolidated cross-appeals from both the assessee and the revenue, noting common and identical issues. The core of the controversy revolved around the confirmation of the Assessing Officer's action regarding the reassessment and the estimation of profit on the unaccounted income. The tribunal decided to address the main grievances of both parties.
The Tribunal held that unaccounted profit from 'on-money' receipts should be taxed in the year the sale deed is executed, not when the 'on-money' was received. They dismissed the revenue's grounds on this matter.
The tribunal consolidated cross-appeals from both the assessee and the revenue, noting common and identical issues. The core controversy revolved around the confirmation of the Assessing Officer's action under Section 147 and the estimation of profit at 16% on the unaccounted receipts. The Ld. CIT(A) had directed the AO to tax the unaccounted profit in the year of sale deed execution, which the revenue contested.
The Tribunal held that while 'on-money' additions are justified, the estimation rate of 16% by the CIT(A) was too high. Considering the business nature and past profits, the Tribunal directed additions at 10% of the 'on-money'.
The Tribunal held that while 'on-money' additions are justified, the estimation rate of 16% by the CIT(A) was too high. Considering the business nature and past profits, the Tribunal directed additions at 10% of the 'on-money'.
The tribunal consolidated cross-appeals from both the assessee and the revenue, noting common and identical issues. The core controversy revolved around the confirmation of the Assessing Officer's action under Section 147 and the estimation of profit at 16% on the unaccounted receipts. The Ld. CIT(A) had directed the AO to tax the unaccounted profit in the year of sale deed execution, which the revenue contested.
The Tribunal held that unaccounted profit from 'on-money' receipts should be taxed in the year the sale deed is executed, not when the 'on-money' was received. They dismissed the revenue's grounds on this matter.
The Tribunal held that unaccounted profit from 'on-money' receipts should be taxed in the year the sale deed is executed, not when the 'on-money' was received. They dismissed the revenue's grounds on this matter.
The tribunal consolidated cross-appeals from both the assessee and the revenue, noting common and identical issues. The core controversy revolved around the confirmation of the Assessing Officer's action under Section 147 and the estimation of profit at 16% on the unaccounted receipts. The Ld. CIT(A) had directed the AO to tax the unaccounted profit in the year of sale deed execution, which the revenue contested.
The Tribunal held that unaccounted profit from 'on-money' receipts should be taxed in the year the sale deed is executed, not when the 'on-money' was received. They dismissed the revenue's grounds on this matter.
The tribunal consolidated cross-appeals from both the assessee and the revenue, noting common and identical issues. The core controversy revolved around the confirmation of the Assessing Officer's action under Section 147 and the estimation of profit at 16% on the unaccounted receipts. The Ld. CIT(A) had directed the AO to tax the unaccounted profit in the year of sale deed execution, which the revenue contested.
The Tribunal held that while 'on-money' additions are justified, the estimation rate of 16% by the CIT(A) was too high. Considering the business nature and past profits, the Tribunal directed additions at 10% of the 'on-money'.
The tribunal consolidated cross-appeals from both the assessee and the revenue, noting common and identical issues. The core controversy revolved around the confirmation of the Assessing Officer's action under Section 147 and the estimation of profit at 16% on the unaccounted receipts. The Ld. CIT(A) had directed the AO to tax the unaccounted profit in the year of sale deed execution, which the revenue contested.
The Tribunal held that while 'on-money' additions are justified, the estimation rate of 16% by the CIT(A) was too high. Considering the business nature and past profits, the Tribunal directed additions at 10% of the 'on-money'.
The Tribunal held that unaccounted profit from 'on-money' receipts should be taxed in the year the sale deed is executed, not when the 'on-money' was received. They dismissed the revenue's grounds on this matter.
The Tribunal held that unaccounted profit from 'on-money' receipts should be taxed in the year the sale deed is executed, not when the 'on-money' was received. They dismissed the revenue's grounds on this matter.
The tribunal consolidated cross-appeals from both the assessee and the revenue, noting common and identical issues. The core of the controversy revolved around the confirmation of the Assessing Officer's action under Section 147 and the estimation of profit at 16% on the unaccounted receipts. The tribunal also addressed the revenue's contention regarding the year of taxation for the unaccounted profit.
The Tribunal held that unaccounted profit from 'on-money' receipts should be taxed in the year the sale deed is executed, not when the 'on-money' was received. They dismissed the revenue's grounds on this matter.
The tribunal consolidated five appeals (three by the assessee, two by the revenue) due to common issues. The core issues revolved around the validity of the reassessment notice, the addition of 'on-money' receipts, the estimation of profit, and the treatment of unaccounted expenses. The specific outcome for each ground is not detailed in the provided text, but the tribunal aimed to address the main grievances.
The tribunal consolidated five appeals (three by the assessee, two by the revenue) due to common issues. The core issues revolved around the validity of the reassessment notice, the addition of 'on-money' receipts, the estimation of profit, the year of taxability for unaccounted profit, and the deletion of additions for unaccounted expenses. The tribunal will address these specific grounds.
The tribunal consolidated five appeals (three by the assessee, two by the revenue) due to common issues. The core issues revolved around the validity of the reassessment notice, the addition of 'on-money' receipts as estimated profit, and the treatment of unaccounted expenses. The specific outcome for each ground is not detailed in the provided text, but the tribunal aimed to address the main grievances.
The tribunal consolidated five appeals (three by the assessee, two by the revenue) due to common issues. The core issues revolved around the validity of the reassessment notice, the addition of 'on-money' receipts, the estimation of profit, the year of taxability for unaccounted profit, and the deletion of additions for unaccounted expenses. The tribunal will address these specific grounds.
The tribunal consolidated five appeals (three by the assessee, two by the revenue) due to common issues. The core issues revolved around the validity of the reassessment notice, the addition of 'on-money' receipts, the estimation of profit, the year of taxability for unaccounted profit, and the deletion of additions for unaccounted expenses. The tribunal will address these specific grounds.
The Tribunal held that the validity of the notice issued under Section 148 was a crucial issue. It also ruled that the benefit of telescoping should be provided to the assessee for cash loans given, as the confirmed unaccounted profit exceeded the loan amount.
The tribunal will decide on the validity of the Section 148 notice for initiating reassessment proceedings and the merits of the addition made by estimating profit at 16% of the 'on-money' receipts. The Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal regarding the validity of the notice and retained the addition.
The Tribunal held that the validity of the notice issued under Section 148 was a crucial issue. It also ruled that the benefit of telescoping should be provided to the assessee for cash loans given, as the confirmed unaccounted profit exceeded the loan amount.
The Tribunal held that the validity of the notice issued under Section 148 was a crucial issue. It also ruled that the benefit of telescoping should be provided to the assessee for cash loans given, as the confirmed unaccounted profit exceeded the loan amount.
The tribunal will decide on the validity of the Section 148 notice for initiating reassessment proceedings and the merits of the addition made by estimating profit at 16% of the 'on-money' receipts. The Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal regarding the validity of the notice and retained the addition.
The tribunal will decide on the validity of the Section 148 notice for initiating reassessment proceedings and the sustenance of the addition made by estimating profit at 16% of the 'on-money' receipts. The Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal regarding the validity of the notice and retained the addition.
The Tribunal held that the validity of the notice issued under Section 148 was a crucial issue. It also ruled that the benefit of telescoping should be provided to the assessee for cash loans given, as the confirmed unaccounted profit exceeded the loan amount.
The tribunal will decide on the validity of the Section 148 notice for initiating reassessment proceedings and the merits of the addition made by estimating profit at 16% of the 'on-money' receipts. The Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal regarding the validity of the notice and retained the addition.
The Tribunal held that the validity of the notice issued under Section 148 was a crucial issue. It also ruled that the benefit of telescoping should be provided to the assessee for cash loans given, as the confirmed unaccounted profit exceeded the loan amount.
The Tribunal held that the validity of the notice issued under Section 148 was a crucial issue. It also ruled that the benefit of telescoping should be provided to the assessee for cash loans given, as the confirmed unaccounted profit exceeded the loan amount.
The Tribunal held that the validity of the notice issued under Section 148 was a crucial issue. It also ruled that the benefit of telescoping should be provided to the assessee for cash loans given, as the confirmed unaccounted profit exceeded the loan amount.
The tribunal will decide on the validity of the Section 148 notice for initiating reassessment proceedings and the merits of the addition made by estimating profit at 16% of the 'on-money' receipts. The Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal regarding the validity of the notice and retained the addition.
The tribunal will decide on the validity of the Section 148 notice for initiating reassessment proceedings and the merits of the addition made by estimating profit at 16% of the 'on-money' receipts. The Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal regarding the validity of the notice and retained the addition.
The Tribunal held that the validity of the notice issued under Section 148 was a crucial issue. It also ruled that the benefit of telescoping should be provided to the assessee for cash loans given, as the confirmed unaccounted profit exceeded the loan amount.
The tribunal will decide on the validity of the Section 148 notice for initiating reassessment proceedings and the sustenance or reduction of the addition made by estimating profit at 16% of the 'on-money' receipts. The Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal regarding the validity of the notice and retained the addition.
The Tribunal addressed the issues by referring to a coordinate bench decision in the assessee's own group case, M/s. R K Infralink LLP. Regarding the deletion of an addition of Rs. 97,30,000/- made on account of alleged cash loans/advances, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had granted telescoping benefit. The CIT(A) had observed that the estimated unaccounted profit (confirmed at 16% of 'on-money' receipt) was more than the cash advanced. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to the benefit of telescoping. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s conclusion and upheld the deletion of this addition, thereby dismissing the Revenue's ground related to it. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal on this specific ground (ground No. 3 in ITA No. 657/RJT/2024 for AY 2018-19) was dismissed. The Tribunal stated that the assessee's appeals were partly allowed to the extent indicated, and the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal addressed the issues by referring to a coordinate bench decision in the assessee's own group case, M/s. R K Infralink LLP. Regarding the deletion of an addition of Rs. 97,30,000/- made on account of alleged cash loans/advances, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had granted telescoping benefit. The CIT(A) had observed that the estimated unaccounted profit (confirmed at 16% of 'on-money' receipt) was more than the cash advanced. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to the benefit of telescoping. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s conclusion and upheld the deletion of this addition, thereby dismissing the Revenue's ground related to it. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal on this specific ground (ground No. 3 in ITA No. 657/RJT/2024 for AY 2018-19) was dismissed. The Tribunal stated that the assessee's appeals were partly allowed to the extent indicated, and the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal addressed the issues by referring to a coordinate bench decision in the assessee's own group case, M/s. R K Infralink LLP. Regarding the deletion of an addition of Rs. 97,30,000/- made on account of alleged cash loans/advances, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had granted telescoping benefit. The CIT(A) had observed that the estimated unaccounted profit (confirmed at 16% of 'on-money' receipt) was more than the cash advanced. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to the benefit of telescoping. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s conclusion and upheld the deletion of this addition, thereby dismissing the Revenue's ground related to it. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal on this specific ground (ground No. 3 in ITA No. 657/RJT/2024 for AY 2018-19) was dismissed. The Tribunal stated that the assessee's appeals were partly allowed to the extent indicated, and the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal addressed the issues by referring to a coordinate bench decision in the assessee's own group case, M/s. R K Infralink LLP. Regarding the deletion of an addition of Rs. 97,30,000/- made on account of alleged cash loans/advances, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had granted telescoping benefit. The CIT(A) had observed that the estimated unaccounted profit (confirmed at 16% of 'on-money' receipt) was more than the cash advanced. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to the benefit of telescoping. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s conclusion and upheld the deletion of this addition, thereby dismissing the Revenue's ground related to it. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal on this specific ground (ground No. 3 in ITA No. 657/RJT/2024 for AY 2018-19) was dismissed. The Tribunal stated that the assessee's appeals were partly allowed to the extent indicated, and the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the validity of notice under Section 148 and the subsequent reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was common to all appeals. The Tribunal, respectfully following its own previous decision in the assessee's own case, dismissed the grounds raised by the Revenue concerning this issue. Regarding the additions made on account of 'on-money' receipts, the Tribunal, relying on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Happy Home Corporation and the jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in Shivalik Buildwell Pvt Ltd, along with the decision of ITAT Ahmedabad in M/s D R. Construction, held that unaccounted profit estimated on 'on-money' receipt is taxable in the year of execution of the sale deed or when significant risk and rewards are transferred to the buyer. Since the assessee followed a revenue recognition method on the execution of the sale deed, only the 'on-money' receipt computed in the present case would be taxable in the year of sale deed execution, not when 'on-money' was received. The Tribunal also noted that ICDS-II was not applicable. Consequently, the grounds raised by the Revenue concerning these additions were dismissed. The Tribunal also dismissed other grounds raised by the Revenue, specifically mentioning grounds raised in ITA No. 794/RJT/2024, ITA No. 795/RJT/2024, ITA No. 796/RJT/2024, and IT(ss) No. 24/RJT/2024, by respectfully following the binding judgment in the assessee's own case. The appeals filed by the Assessee were partly allowed to the extent indicated, while all appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal addressed the issues by referring to a coordinate bench decision in the assessee's own group case, M/s. R K Infralink LLP. Regarding the deletion of an addition of Rs. 97,30,000/- made on account of alleged cash loans/advances, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had granted telescoping benefit. The CIT(A) had observed that the estimated unaccounted profit (confirmed at 16% of 'on-money' receipt) was more than the cash advanced. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to the benefit of telescoping. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s conclusion and upheld the deletion of this addition, thereby dismissing the Revenue's ground related to it. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal on this specific ground (ground No. 3 in ITA No. 657/RJT/2024 for AY 2018-19) was dismissed. The Tribunal stated that the assessee's appeals were partly allowed to the extent indicated, and the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal addressed the issues by referring to a coordinate bench decision in the assessee's own group case, M/s. R K Infralink LLP. Regarding the deletion of an addition of Rs. 97,30,000/- made on account of alleged cash loans/advances, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had granted telescoping benefit. The CIT(A) had observed that the estimated unaccounted profit (confirmed at 16% of 'on-money' receipt) was more than the cash advanced. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to the benefit of telescoping. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s conclusion and upheld the deletion of this addition, thereby dismissing the Revenue's ground related to it. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal on this specific ground (ground No. 3 in ITA No. 657/RJT/2024 for AY 2018-19) was dismissed. The Tribunal stated that the assessee's appeals were partly allowed to the extent indicated, and the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.
The tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in retaining the addition by estimating profit at 16% of the 'on-money' receipt, deeming it excessive. It also noted the Ld. CIT(A)'s error in directing the AO to tax unaccounted profit in the year of sale deed execution instead of the year of 'on-money' receipt, which contradicts accounting principles for real estate developers.
The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the validity of notice under Section 148 and the subsequent reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was common to all appeals. The Tribunal, respectfully following its own previous decision in the assessee's own case, dismissed the grounds raised by the Revenue concerning this issue. Regarding the additions made on account of 'on-money' receipts, the Tribunal, relying on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Happy Home Corporation and the jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in Shivalik Buildwell Pvt Ltd, along with the decision of ITAT Ahmedabad in M/s D R. Construction, held that unaccounted profit estimated on 'on-money' receipt is taxable in the year of execution of the sale deed or when significant risk and rewards are transferred to the buyer. Since the assessee followed a revenue recognition method on the execution of the sale deed, only the 'on-money' receipt computed in the present case would be taxable in the year of sale deed execution, not when 'on-money' was received. The Tribunal also noted that ICDS-II was not applicable. Consequently, the grounds raised by the Revenue concerning these additions were dismissed. The Tribunal also dismissed other grounds raised by the Revenue, specifically mentioning grounds raised in ITA No. 794/RJT/2024, ITA No. 795/RJT/2024, ITA No. 796/RJT/2024, and IT(ss) No. 24/RJT/2024, by respectfully following the binding judgment in the assessee's own case. The appeals filed by the Assessee were partly allowed to the extent indicated, while all appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the validity of notice under Section 148 and the subsequent reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was common to all appeals. The Tribunal, respectfully following its own previous decision in the assessee's own case, dismissed the grounds raised by the Revenue concerning this issue. Regarding the additions made on account of 'on-money' receipts, the Tribunal, relying on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Happy Home Corporation and the jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in Shivalik Buildwell Pvt Ltd, along with the decision of ITAT Ahmedabad in M/s D R. Construction, held that unaccounted profit estimated on 'on-money' receipt is taxable in the year of execution of the sale deed or when significant risk and rewards are transferred to the buyer. Since the assessee followed a revenue recognition method on the execution of the sale deed, only the 'on-money' receipt computed in the present case would be taxable in the year of sale deed execution, not when 'on-money' was received. The Tribunal also noted that ICDS-II was not applicable. Consequently, the grounds raised by the Revenue concerning these additions were dismissed. The Tribunal also dismissed other grounds raised by the Revenue, specifically mentioning grounds raised in ITA No. 794/RJT/2024, ITA No. 795/RJT/2024, ITA No. 796/RJT/2024, and IT(ss) No. 24/RJT/2024, by respectfully following the binding judgment in the assessee's own case. The appeals filed by the Assessee were partly allowed to the extent indicated, while all appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the validity of notice under Section 148 and the subsequent reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was common to all appeals. The Tribunal, respectfully following its own previous decision in the assessee's own case, dismissed the grounds raised by the Revenue concerning this issue. Regarding the additions made on account of 'on-money' receipts, the Tribunal, relying on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Happy Home Corporation and the jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in Shivalik Buildwell Pvt Ltd, along with the decision of ITAT Ahmedabad in M/s D R. Construction, held that unaccounted profit estimated on 'on-money' receipt is taxable in the year of execution of the sale deed or when significant risk and rewards are transferred to the buyer. Since the assessee followed a revenue recognition method on the execution of the sale deed, only the 'on-money' receipt computed in the present case would be taxable in the year of sale deed execution, not when 'on-money' was received. The Tribunal also noted that ICDS-II was not applicable. Consequently, the grounds raised by the Revenue concerning these additions were dismissed. The Tribunal also dismissed other grounds raised by the Revenue, specifically mentioning grounds raised in ITA No. 794/RJT/2024, ITA No. 795/RJT/2024, ITA No. 796/RJT/2024, and IT(ss) No. 24/RJT/2024, by respectfully following the binding judgment in the assessee's own case. The appeals filed by the Assessee were partly allowed to the extent indicated, while all appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.