1 DCIT v. Gopal Krishan Builders

91 ITD 124Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2004#21707 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Judgments citing 1 DCIT v. Gopal Krishan Builders

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(1), HYDERABAD vs. DAKSHIN INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 991/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Apr 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer Vs. Dakshin Infrastructures Ward 17(1) (P) Ltd., Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaccd4138P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 18/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/04/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.03.2019 Of The Learned Cit (A)-1, Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2010-11. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Infrastructure Activity. A Survey Operation U/S 133A Was Conducted In The Business Premises Of The Company On 7.8.2009. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 27.9.2010 Declaring Income Of Rs.3,45,360/-. The Assessment U/S 143(3) Was Completed On 28.3.2013 Accepting The Returned Income Of Rs.3,45,360/-.

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…to offer any of the amount for taxation. 5. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation given by the assessee. Referring to the decision of the Lucknow Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CIT vs. Gopalkrishna Builders reported in (91 ITD 124) wherein it has been held that the amount of advances received from customers Page 2 of 5 ITA 991 Dakshin Infrastructures P Ltd for booking of flats/office spaces is to be treated as turnover, the Assessing Officer applied the profit rate of 8% on Rs.46,33,16,915/- and accordingly made addition of Rs.3,70,65,353/-. 6. In appeal, the learned CI…

LATE SHRI NAROTTAM G. PRABHU BY L. H. VISHWAS NAROTTAM PRABHU,THANE vs. ITO WARD 3(3), KALYAN, KALYAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5282/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri P. Daniel, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, D.R

Section 234ASection 40Section 44A

…t. Consequently, the assessee was required to deduct tax under section 194C of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision of Tribunal in the case of Esque Finmark Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 9(1), Mumbai ITA/1624/Mum/2011 and DCIT vs. Gopal Krishan Builders (2004) 91 ITD 124 (Lucknow) SMC whereas the counsel relied on the decision of Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. B.K. Jhala & Associates (1999) 69 ITD 141 Pune, 6 Late Shri Narottam G. Prabhu M/s. Siroya Developers vs. DCIT in ITA No.600/M/2010 A.Y. 2005-06. Thus, there is a clear dichotomy of ratios one in favour of the assessee and other against the assessee. We a…

SRI. LALANATH REDDY,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

ITA 270/BANG/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Feb 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Smt. Jinita Chatterjee, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. G. Kamaladhar, Standing Counsel

Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44A

…bmitted that the assessee has not complied with the provision of section 44AB and has thus subjected for the penalty under section 271B of the Act were rightly levied on him and Ld Dr relied upon following 2 judgments. 1 DCIT Vs. Gopal Krishan Builders (2004) 91 ITD 124 Luck 2 CIT Vs. S. C Naregal (2010 )329 ITR 615 5. We have heard the rival contentions of the parties and perused the record. . The search has taken place under section 132 of the IT Act on 16.09.2008 and the notice under section 153A was issued for the AY 2006-07 on 02.02.2010 and thereafter the assessee in response to the notice had filed the ret…

CHAITANYA ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. ITO 25(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 133/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosain: (A.Y : 2006-07)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Neil Philip

Section 143(2)Section 271BSection 275Section 44A

…the immunity to not get his accounts audited as the provisions of Sec. 44AB otherwise mandates a tax-payer to do so. We have also appreciated that in similar circumstances, the Lucknow Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT v. Gopal Krishan Builder (2004) 91 ITD 124 has rightly held that the advance received by the construction firm for booking of flats comprises an element of profit, therefore, the advance received by the construction companies falls under the meaning of “gross receipts” for the purpose of Sec. 44AB of the Act. Therefore, while concurring with the findings recorded by the coordinate bench an…