Full Text
Translation output
$10to 12 & 17 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
ITA90/2015
ITA90/2015
ITA91/2015
ITA92/2015
ITA96/2015
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) II ..... Appellant
Through Mr. P Roy Chaudhuri and Mr. Rohit Madan, Advs.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) II ..... Appellant
Through Mr. P Roy Chaudhuri and Mr. Rohit Madan, Advs.
VERSUS
HOME DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD. Respondent
Through None
Through None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
13.02.2015 These appeals impugn the common
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
13.02.2015 These appeals impugn the common
ORDER
and order dated
21.9.2012 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in several appeals preferred by both the assessee and revenue. The main appeal ITA No.808/2014 concerns assessment year 2005-06 and the other appeals ITA Nos.807/2014, 809/2014, 810/2014 and 811/2014 are concerned with penalties imposed by the assessing officer, ultimately interfered with by the ITAT.
The proceedings in this case arose on account of search conducted in the premises of one Yogesh Gupta, a director of the assessee-company on
28.3.2006. Thereafter, notice under section 153A was issued and a return was filed by the assessee. During thecourse of proceedings the assessee had
2015:DHC:11055-DB surrendered undisclosed income of Z2 crores for the block period. In the course of the search, in addition to this disclosure in the name of Yogesh
Gupta, further disclosures of Z2 crores in the name of Rajiv Bahal and his family members and Z9 crores in the name of Realtech Project Pvt. Ltd. and
Realtech Construction Pvt. Ltd. were also made. This culminated in the common order of the ITAT.
At the outset we notice that said common order was carried in appeal for assessment year 2004-05 in ITA 803/2014. The Court on that occasion repelled the contention of the revenue that loans were taken and interest payments have been made which had been overlooked by the ITAT. This
Court was of the opinion that there was no material in support of such contention. In the present appeal, too, identical submissions have been made and the questions of law urged are of the same kind as were urged in
ITA 803/2014. Following the reasoning in ITA No.803/2014 and ITA Nos.
807/2014, 808/2014, 809/2014, 810/2014 and 811/2014, the present appeals are dismissed.
Pending applications are also disposed of as infructuous.
S.RALV RABHAT,J R.K.GA BA, J FEBRUARY 13, 2015 vid
2015:DHC:11055-DB
21.9.2012 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in several appeals preferred by both the assessee and revenue. The main appeal ITA No.808/2014 concerns assessment year 2005-06 and the other appeals ITA Nos.807/2014, 809/2014, 810/2014 and 811/2014 are concerned with penalties imposed by the assessing officer, ultimately interfered with by the ITAT.
The proceedings in this case arose on account of search conducted in the premises of one Yogesh Gupta, a director of the assessee-company on
28.3.2006. Thereafter, notice under section 153A was issued and a return was filed by the assessee. During thecourse of proceedings the assessee had
2015:DHC:11055-DB surrendered undisclosed income of Z2 crores for the block period. In the course of the search, in addition to this disclosure in the name of Yogesh
Gupta, further disclosures of Z2 crores in the name of Rajiv Bahal and his family members and Z9 crores in the name of Realtech Project Pvt. Ltd. and
Realtech Construction Pvt. Ltd. were also made. This culminated in the common order of the ITAT.
At the outset we notice that said common order was carried in appeal for assessment year 2004-05 in ITA 803/2014. The Court on that occasion repelled the contention of the revenue that loans were taken and interest payments have been made which had been overlooked by the ITAT. This
Court was of the opinion that there was no material in support of such contention. In the present appeal, too, identical submissions have been made and the questions of law urged are of the same kind as were urged in
ITA 803/2014. Following the reasoning in ITA No.803/2014 and ITA Nos.
807/2014, 808/2014, 809/2014, 810/2014 and 811/2014, the present appeals are dismissed.
Pending applications are also disposed of as infructuous.
S.RALV RABHAT,J R.K.GA BA, J FEBRUARY 13, 2015 vid
2015:DHC:11055-DB