Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 87000 (ITAT-DELHI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
CRN Number
Duration Of Justice
7 month(s) 9 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
10-03-2015
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
A
Next Hearing Date
17-12-2014
Assessment Year
2010-2011
Appeal Filed On
31-07-2014
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : A : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.S. KAPOOR , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 4201/DEL /2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010 - 11 M/S BUNIYAD DEVELOPERS VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PVT. LTD, A - 54/1, NARAINA WARD - 3(1), NEW DELHI INDUSTRIAL AREA, PHASE - 1, NEW DELHI. (PAN: AAACB1149A ) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : S/SH. RAJIV SAXENA & SUMANGLA SAXENA , ADVOCATES RESPONDEN T BY: SMT. A. MISHRA, CI T, DR DATE OF HEARING: 17.12.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 10 - 03.2015 ORDER PER I.C. SUDHIR, JM : THE ASSESSEE HAS QUESTIONED THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT (A) IS BAD IN LAW AND REQUIRED TO BE QUASHED AS LEGALLY NOT TENABLE ON VARIOUS GROUNDS AMONGST THE FOLLOWING BECAUSE: A) SHE DID NOT FOLLOW THE DIRECTIONS OF HER PREDECESSOR VIDE LETTER DATED 22 - 04 - 2014 TO THE AO FOR MAKING SPEC IFIC ENQUIRY FOR CALCULATING THE MOTORABLE ROAD DISTANCE OF VILLAGE KISHORA FROM THE THEN MUNICIPAL LIMITS OF 1994 (WHEN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT NOTIFIED IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 2 (14)(III)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WHICH WAS APPLI CABLE ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE). 2 ITA NO. 4201/DEL /2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010 - 11 B) SHE HAS FAILED TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT CAN ENTER INTO THE STATE SUBJECT I.E. AGRICULTURE ONLY BY WAY OF BRINGING EITHER NOTIFICATION OR ANY LAW PASSED BY THE PARLIAMENT AS WAS DONE BY IT FROM TIME TO T IME ON 06 - 02 - 1973, 06 - 01 - 1994 AND BY FINANCE ACT, 2013 MENTIONED IN CLAUSE III (B) OF SUBSECTION 14 OF SECTION 2. C) THE APPELLANT SPECIFICALLY SOUGHT TIME TO INSPECT THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS AND TO OBTAIN RELEVANT DOCUMENTS COLLECTED BY HIM DURING THE INQU IRY AS IT WAS NOT CLEAR FROM THE REMAND REPORT THAT SPECIFIC ENQUIRY WAS COMPLETED. D) THE APPELLANT ALSO APPLIED TO THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL SEEKING CLARIFICATION BY FILING LETTER DATED 23 - 07 - 2014 ITSELF AND DULY INFORMED THE CIT (A) ABOUT THE SAME AND TO RE CEIVE COPY THEREOF WHICH SHE REFUSED TO ACCEPT AND WAS SENT BY REGISTERED POST. E) SHE DID NOT ACCEPT THE DECISION OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SATINDER PAL SINGH 188 TAXMANN 54 HAVING JURISDICTION ON THE AGRICULTURE LAN D SITUATED IN HARYANA ITSELF AND APPLIED THE PROVISION BROUGHT BY THE LEGISLATURE BY FINANCE ACT, 2013 WHICH WAS APPLICABLE ONLY W.E.F. 01 - 04 - 2014. F) SHE HAS TOTALLY IGNORED THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE ITAT, JAIPUR BENCH WHICH WAS NOT ONLY CITED BUT WAS PART OF THE PAPER BOOK SPECIFICALLY ANALYZING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2 (14) AND NOTIFICATIONS ISSUED THEREON WHICH WAS DIRECTLY APPLICABLE ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE. G) SHE HAS ALSO IGNORED THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT OF SECTION 2 (LA) AN D SECTION 2 (14) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. H) SHE HAS TOTALLY IGNORED AND FAILED TO NOTICE NOR ENQUIRED FROM THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS WHERE AO HIMSELF ASSESSED AGRICULTURE INCOME CONTINUOUSLY FOR THE LAST SO MANY YEARS AND SO HE CANNOT TAKE DIFFERENT STAND IN ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL CONTRARY BROUGHT BY HIM ON RECORD. 2. LD CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS 21,26,09,521/ - COMPUTED BY THE AO BY TREATING THE AGRICULTURE LAND AS CAPITAL ASSET UNDER SECTI ON 2 (14) OF THE IT ACT . 3. LD CIT ( A) HAS ALSO ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS 36,62,426/ - CLAIMED AS BUSINESS EXPENSE. 4. THAT LD CIT ( A) HAS ALSO ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN DISALLOWING THE AGRICULTURE INCOME OF RS 3,28,534/ - . 3 ITA NO. 4201/DEL /2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010 - 11 5. LD CIT ( A) HAS ALSO ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN COMPUTING THE INTEREST INCOME OF RS 44,35,304/ - UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURC ES AS AGAINST BUSINESS INCOME. 2. WE HAVE HEARD AND CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PARTIES AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON. 3. IN GROUND NO. 1, THE ISSUE RAISED IS AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO PAY TAX ONLY ON THE CAPITAL GAIN EARNED ON THE SALE OF ITS AGRICULTURAL LAND SITUATED AT VILLAGE KISHORA , SON E PAT, HARYANA, AS THE SAME BEING OUT OF THE PURVIEW OF DEFINITION OF C APITAL ASSET AS PER SECTION 2(14)(III) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT ). 3 . 1 THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT AGREE WITH THE ASSESSEE ON THE CALCULATION OF MEASUREMENT OF THE DISTANCE OF THE LAND SITUATED AT VILLAGE KISHORA, SONEPAT , HARY ANA, FROM MUNICIPAL LIMIT, WHICH , AS PER THE ASSESSEE, WAS MORE THAN 8 KILOMETERS HENCE, IT WAS OUT OF THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 2(14)(III) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXPRESSED HIS VIEW KEEPING IN MIND THE AMENDMENT BY FINANCE ACT, 20 1 3 TO THE EFFECT T HAT DISTANCE FROM MUNICIPAL LIMIT SHALL BE AERIAL DISTANCE. HE RELIED UPON THE LETTER DATED 14.03.2013 OF THE DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER, SONEPAT, SHOWING VILLAGE KISHORE, DISTT. SONEPAT , WITHIN 8 KMS . LIMIT OF MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SONEPAT ATTACHING WITH A MAP OF SONEPAT - KUNDLI MULTIFUNCTIONAL URBAN COMPLEX. THE A.O. ALSO NOTED THAT THE VILLAGE KISHORA FALLS WITHIN NOTIFIED AREA VIDE NOTIFICATION DATED 09.10.1986 OF HARYANA 4 ITA NO. 4201/DEL /2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010 - 11 GOV ERNMENT BEING 5 KMS . OF LIMIT. THE ASSESSEE QUESTIONED THE VERY BASIS OF CALCULATION OF THE ABOVE DISTANCE AND CONTENDED THAT BY APPROACH ROAD THE DISTANCE IS APPROX . 12 KMS WHEREAS THE DISTANCE CALCULATED BY THE DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER APPEARS TO BE ON THE BASIS OF STRAIGHT LINE DISTANCE ON HORIZONTAL PLANE AS PER CROW S FLIGHT, WHICH WAS NOT PERMISSIBLE DURING THE YEAR. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT NOTIFICATION OF GOV ERNMENT OF HARYANA IS NOT APPLICABLE FOR THE PURPOSE AND THE RELEVANT IS THE NOTIFICATION NO. 509447, DT. 06.01.1994 OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT SPECIFYING THE NOTIFIED AREA FROM THE MUNICIPAL LIMIT FOR THE PURPOSE. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ALSO UPHELD THIS ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HENCE, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON THIS ISSUE. 3.2 THE ISSUE A S TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO P AY TAX ON THE CAPITAL GAIN EARNED RAISED IN THE GROUND NO. 1, WILL DEPEND UPON THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE LAND SITUATED AT VILLAGE KISHORA AND MUNICIPAL LIMIT OF THE AREA. 3. 3 AT THE OUTSET OF HEARING, THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MOVED A PPLICATION UNDER RULE 29 OF THE ITAT RULES FOR FILING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THE SHAPE OF REPLY RECEIVED UNDER R.T.I. SUBSEQUENT TO THE LETTER DATED 23.07.2014 WRITTEN TO MUNICIPAL ENGINEER, MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SONEPAT . HE SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE O F HEARING BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAD SOUGHT TO ALLOW THE GOOGLE MAP, AFFIDAVIT OF FARMER WHO WAS CULTIVATING THE LAND ON BA TAI AND LETTER TO J.E., DEPT. OF TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING AND HIS REPLY DATED 30.12.2013 TO BE ALLOWED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. 5 ITA NO. 4201/DEL /2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010 - 11 THE LEARNED CIT(A) CALLED FOR REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE MOVED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN COMPLIA NCE, THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER FURNISHED ITS REPORT ON 01.04.2014 REPEATIN G THE SAME VERSION AS DISCUSSED IN ASSESSMENT ORDER. 3. 4 IN REPLY TO THE REMAND REPORT, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE INTRICACIES TO MAKE NECESSARY INQUIRY TO CALCULATE THE DISTANCE AS P ER NOTIFICATION OF 1994 AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 2(14) OF THE ACT. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE AMENDMENT TO THAT NOTIFICATION WAS BROUGHT W.E.F. 01.04.2014 AND BEFORE THAT NOTIFICATION OF 1994 IS APPLICABLE. THE LEARNED CIT(A) THEREAFTER DIRECTED AGAIN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE NECESSARY INQUIRY ABOUT THE DISTANCE OF MOTORABLE ROAD FROM THE CONCERNED AUTHORITY TO EXAMINE THE FACTS AS APPLICABLE IN THE YEAR 1994 VIDE LETTER DATED 22.04.2014. 3. 5 THE LEARNED CIT(A) AGAIN FIXED THE HEARING AND ASKED T O RESPOND HER LETTER DATED 09.07.2014. THE ASSESSEE REPLIED IT VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 10.07.2014 EXPLAINING THE FACTS AND ALSO SOUGHT THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LEARNED CIT(A) VIDE LETTER DATED 11.07.2014 , ENCLOSED THE R EMAND REPORT DATED 28.05.2014 SHOWING THE LETTER DATED 16.05.2014 RECEIVED FROM DEPT. OF TOWN AND PLANNING, SONEPAT . IN RESPONSE TO WHICH , REPLY DATED 16.07.2014 RECEIVED ON 17.07.2014 WAS FILED HIGHLIGHTING CERTAIN DOCUMENTS NOT ENCLOSED AND ALSO EXPLAINE D THAT THE INQUIRY SOUGHT BY THE PREDECESSORS CIT(A) WAS NOT MADE AS PER TH E NOTIFICATION DATED 6 ITA NO. 4201/DEL /2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010 - 11 06.04.1994 AND A SUITABLE DIRECTION BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SUPPLY THE DOCUMENTS, IF INQUIRY IS COMPLETED AS PER HER PREDECESSORS CIT(A) ON THE SAM E DATE. A L ETTER TO ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ALSO FILED FOR INSPECTION OF RECORDS WHO ASKED TO APPEAR ON 21.07.2014 AND SUBSEQUENTLY ON 30 .07.2014, WHICH WAS INFORMED TO THE LEARNED CIT(A) . T WO APPLICATIONS UNDER RTI WERE ALSO FILED BEFORE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SONEPAT . THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS AGAIN APPRISED ABOUT THE LETTER DATED 23.07.2014 ADDRESSED TO EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SONEPAT AND MUNICIPAL ENGINEER, MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SONEPAT UNDER R.T.I. DULY RECEIVED. THESE COPIES OF LETTER S DATED 23.07.2014 WERE ALSO SENT THROUGH LETTER DATED 24.07.2014 BY REGISTERED POST ON 25.07.2014 TO THE LEARNED CIT(A) . LEARNED CIT(A) HAS , HOWEVER , PASSED THE ORDER ON 23.07.2014 I.E. BEFORE THE RECEIPT OF THE COPIE S OF THE LETTER DATED 23.07.2014 SENT TO HIM THROUGH REGISTERED POST ON 25.07.2014 . THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THE REPLY RECEIVED UNDER R.T.I. SUBSEQUENT TO THE LETTER DATED 23.07.2014 ENCLOSED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS VERY MATERIAL TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AND THE SAME MAY BE CONSIDERED AFTER ADMITTING THEM AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. 3. 6 LEARNED DR OBJECTED THE APPLICATION WITH THIS SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW TO FURNISH SUCH TYPE OF INFORMATIO N SO THAT THE SAME SHOULD HAVE BEEN VERIFIED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW BEFORE CONSIDERING THE SAME. 7 ITA NO. 4201/DEL /2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010 - 11 3.7 AFTER CONSIDERING THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS, WE CONCUR WITH THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED AR THAT THE AFORESAID DOCUMENTS ISSUED BY DIFFERENT AUTHORITIE S LIKE TEHSILDAR, SONEPAT AND MUNICIPAL ENGINEER, MUNICIPAL COUNCIL , SONEPAT , REGARDING THE DISTANCE OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND OF THE ASSESSEE FROM TH E LIMIT OF MUNICIPAL COUNCIL WI LL BE MATERIAL FOR CONSIDERATION TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AND THESE ADDITION AL EVIDENCE COULD NOT BE FILED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) DUE TO SUFFICIENT REASON AS EXPLAINED HEREINABOVE BY THE LEARNED AR. OF COURSE, THERE IS SOME SCOPE OF DOUBT THAT LETTER STATED TO BE DATED 23.07.2014 SEEKING INFORMATION FROM EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND MUN ICIPAL ENGINEER, MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SONEPAT , MIGHT HAVE BEEN WRITTEN AFTER PASSING OF THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER ON 23.07.2014 BUT AT THE SAME TIME POSSIBILITY OF IGNORANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD ALSO CANNOT BE RULED OUT. THE URGE OF THE JURISPRUDEN CE IS TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. IT ALSO REMAINED MATTER OF OUR CONCERN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOUGHT INFORMATION FROM THE EXECUTING OFFICER AND MUNICIPAL ENGINEER, MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SONEPAT , VIDE LETTER DATED 23.07.2014 AND COUNCIL ENGINEER RESPONDED O N 29.09.2014 AND I N BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE ALSO OBTAINED A CERTIFICATE DATED 26.08.2014 ABOUT THE DISTANCE FROM THE TEHSILDAR, SONEPAT VIDE A DIFFERENT LETTER. THE DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER, SONEPAT, HAS ALSO REPORTED DIFFERENT DISTANCE IN THEIR DIFFERENT LETTER AND REPLY WITHOUT MENTIONING THE MODE OF MEASUREMENT EITHER AERIAL OR MOTORABLE ROAD ADOPTED BY THEM FOR THE PURPOSE. THE ULTIMATE INFERENCE, HOWEVER, IS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS TRYING HA R D TO GATHER THE REQUIRED 8 ITA NO. 4201/DEL /2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010 - 11 INFORMATION FROM THE AUTHORITIES CONCERN ABO UT THE CORRECT DISTANCE . EVEN OTHERWISE, AUTHORITIES LIKE, TEHSILDAR OF THE AREA, MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SONEPAT AND DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER, SONEPAT ARE THE CONCERN AUTHORITIES TO ASCERTAIN THE DISTANCE. THE LEARNED AR ALSO REFERRED PAGE NOS. 61 TO 129 OF THE P APER BOOK WHICH ARE CORRESPONDENCES WITH DIFFERENT AUTHORITIES REGARDING ASCERTAINMENT OF THE DISTANCE OF KISHORA VILLAGE FROM THE MUNICIPAL LIMIT OF SONEPAT . WE , THUS, ALLOW THE APPLICATION AND ADMIT THE ADDITION AL EVIDENCE IN QUESTION FOR O UR CONSIDERATI ON TO ADJUDICATE UPON THE ISSUE. 3.8 NOW, THE ISSUE BEFORE OUR FURTHER CONSIDERATION WOULD BE AS TO WHICH PROVISION WILL BE APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FALLING IN THE A.Y. 2010 - 11. UNDISPUTEDLY, THE AMENDMENT BROUGHT BY FINANCE ACT, 2013 TO THE EFFECT THAT THE DISTANCE FROM MUNICIPAL LIMIT SHALL BE AERIAL DISTANCE WAS NOT AVAILABLE DURING A.Y. 2010 - 11 , NOR HAS IT ANY RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION AS PER THE AME NDMENT. THE A.O. HAS FOLLOWED THE AMENDED PROVISION AND REFERRED TO HARYANA GOVERNMENT NOTIFICATION DATED 09.10.1986 AS PER WHICH URBAN AREA IS AN AREA OF LAND WITHIN THE LIMITS OF MUNICIPAL AREA OR FARIDABAD COMPLEX OR SITUATE WITHIN 5 KMS. OF LIMITS. BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED GOOGLE MAP (SHOWING THE DISTANCE AT 11.1 KMS.) , AFFIDAVIT FROM FARMER WHO WAS CULTIVATING THE LAND ON BATAI AND LETTER TO J.E., DISTRICT TOWN AND COUNTRY PL ANNING AND HIS REPLY DATED 30.12.2013 AS ADDITION AL EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION DOES NOT FALL WITHIN 9 ITA NO. 4201/DEL /2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010 - 11 8 KILOMETERS FROM THE OUTER MUNICIPAL LIMIT. THE DECISIONS CITED IN SUPPORT ARE SMT. ( DR. ) SUBHA TRIPATHI VS. DCI T, 34 TAXMANN.COM 286 (JAIPUR); ITO VS. SH. SUKHLAL, ITA NO. 2420/D/2006 AND CIT VS. SATINDER PAL SINGH, 188 TAXMANN. COM 54 (P& H). THE HON BLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SATINDER PAL SINGH (SUPRA) HAS BEEN PLEASED TO HOLD THAT DISTANCE OF LAND FOR PURPOSE OF SECTION 2(14)(III) HAS TO BE TAKEN IN TERMS OF APPROACH BY ROAD AND NOT AS PER STRAIGHT LINE DISTANCE ON A HORIZONTAL PLACE OR AS PER CROW S FLIGHT DISTANCE. THE HON BLE HIGH COURT HAS ALSO CONSIDERED THE NOTIFICATION NO. 9447 DATED 06.01.1994 WHILE ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE. THE HON BLE HIGH COURT HAS BEEN PLEASED TO OBSERVE THAT THE RECKONING O F URBANIZATION AS A FACTOR FOR PRESCRIBING THE DISTANCE IS OF SIGNIFICANCE WITH THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENT OF KEEPING IN VIEW THE EXTENT OF URBANIZATION. SUCH A COURSE WOULD BE ILLUSORY. IT IS PURSUACE OF THE AFORESAID PROVISION THAT THE NOTIFICATION NO. 9447 DATED 06.01.19 94 HAS BEEN ISSUED BY THE C ENTRAL GOVERNMENT, HELD THE HON BLE HIGH COURT. 3.9 IN THE CASE OF SMT. (DR.) SUBHA TRIPATHI VS. D CTI (SUPRA), THE A.Y. INVOLVED WAS 2008 - 09 , T HE AGRICULTURE LAND IN QUESTION THOUGH LOCATED BEYOND 8 KMS. FROM MUNICIPAL LIMIT S OF JAIPUR MUNICIPALITY AS ON THE DATE OF IMPUGNED CBDT NOTIFICATION NO. 9447, DATED 0 6.01.1994 BUT SUBSEQUENTLY IT F E LL WITHIN DISTANCE OF 8 KMS. FROM MUNICIPAL LIMITS DUE TO EXPANSION OF MUNICIPAL LIMIT , T HE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE SAID LAND WOULD STILL BE REGARDED AS AGRICULTURAL LAND 10 ITA NO. 4201/DEL /2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010 - 11 NOT FALLING IN DEFIN ITION OF CAPITAL ASSET IN TERMS OF SECTION 2(14)(III)(B) OF THE ACT. 3.10 IN VIEW OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE ABOVE CITED DECISIONS, WE HOLD THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE BEFORE US, WHEN LAND IN QUESTION HAS BEEN SOLD DURING THE PERIOD FA LLING IN THE A.Y. 2010 - 11, THE NOTIFICATION NO. 9447, DATED 06.01.1994 IN OPERATION WILL BE APPLICABLE TO COMPUTE THE DISTANCE FROM THE MUNICIPAL LIMIT. 3.11 BEFORE US , THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CORRESPONDENCES WITH THE MUNICIPAL ENGINEER AND INFORMATION GATHERED FROM THEM AS WELL AS TEHSILDAR, SONEPAT , AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHICH WE HAVE ADMITTED TO VERIFY THE ACTUAL MOTORABLE DISTANCE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IN QUESTION FR OM THE OUTER MUNICIPAL LIMIT. COPIES OF THESE CORRESPONDENCES AND INFORMATIONS GATHERED FROM DIFFERENT AUTHORITIES CONCERNED HAVE BEEN MADE AVAILABLE AT PAGE NOS. 1 TO 11 TO THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER RULE 29 OF THE ITAT RULES FOR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. AMO NG THESE CORRESPONDENCES , ARE THE LETTER DATED 26.08.2014 ISSUED BY TE H SILDAR, SONEPAT , STATING THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION AS ON 06.01.1994 WAS MORE THAN 8 KILOMETERS FROM THE MUNICIPAL LIMIT I.E. TRUCK UNION, SONEPAT . THE ANOTHER LETTER IS DATED 19.02.2013 ISSUED BY COUNCIL ENGINEER, MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SONEPAT , ADDRESSED TO THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NEW DELHI, STATING THEREIN THAT THERE IS NO ANY VILLAGE KISHORA WITHIN 8 KILOMETERS FROM THE LIMIT OF MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SON EPAT . THIS LETTER HAS BEEN ISSUED BY THE COUNCIL ENGINEER IN RESPONSE TO THE INFORMATIONS SOUGHT UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT BY THE 11 ITA NO. 4201/DEL /2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010 - 11 I.T.O. IT APPEARS THAT SPIO - CUM - DISTRICT TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNER, SONEPAT , HAD FORWARDED THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSE E SEEKING THE REQUISITE INFORMATION TO THE E.O., MUNICI PAL COMMITTEE, SONEPAT . IN THESE ENTIRE CORRESPONDENCES , WE THUS FIND THAT THE LETTER DATED 26.08.2014 ISSUED BY TEHSILDAR, SONEPAT , TO THE ASSESSEE AND LETTER DATED 19.02.2013 ISSUED BY THE COUNCIL EN GINEER, MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SONEPAT , ADDRESSED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPONSE TO HIS SEEKING OF INFORMATION SOUGHT UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE I.T. ACT, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS ON THE ISSUE OF DISTANCE OF THE LAND IN QUESTION FROM THE MUNICIPAL LIMIT OF SONEPAT . WE FIND THAT THE A.O. HAS RELIED UPON THE INFORMATION DATED 14.03.2013 OF THE DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER, SONEPAT AND THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ALSO REFERRED THEIR LETTER DATED 16.05.2014 IN THIS REGARD TH AT VILLAGE KISHORA IS WITHIN 8 KMS . LIMITS OF MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SONEPAT. THIS INFORMATION HAS BEEN CONTRADICTED BY THE DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER, SONEPAT, VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 30.12.2013 THAT VILLAGE KISHORA IS MORE THAN 8 KMS. FROM THE MUNICIPALITY, SONEPAT (PAGE 106). WE THUS FIND THAT THE DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER IS NOT CLEAR ON THEIR STAND NOR THEY HAVE MENTIONED ABOUT THE MODE, EITHER AERIAL OR MOTORABLE ROAD ADOPTED FOR THE MEASUREMENT OF THE DISTANCE. WE , THEREFORE , IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE VERACITY OF THESE TWO LETTERS, ONE ISSUED BY TEHSILDAR, SONEPAT AND THE ANOTHER BY COUNCIL ENGINEER, MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SONEPAT , AS WELL AS THE MODE I.E. AERIAL OR MOTORABLE ROAD FOR CALCULATION OF THE 12 ITA NO. 4201/DEL /2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010 - 11 DISTANCE ADOPTED BY THE DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER, SONEPAT , FOLLOWED BY THE A.O. AS WELL AS LEARNED CIT(A) AND DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH ABOUT THE DISTANCE I N VIEW OF ABOVE CITED DECISIONS, NOTIFICATION DATED 06. 01.1994 AND OUR OBSERVATIONS, AFTER AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THE FATE OF ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO. 2 IS DEPENDING UPON THE OUTCOME OF THE ABOVE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO. 1. GROUND NO. 2 IS THUS ALSO SET ASIDE FOR FRESH CONSID ERATION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN VIEW OF HIS FINDING ON GROUND NO. 1. THE GROUND NOS. 1 AND 2 ARE THUS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 4. THE G ROUND NO. 3 IS REG ARDING DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 36,6 2,426/ - CLAIMED AS BUSINESS EXPENSES. 4.1 IN SUPPORT OF THIS GROUND, THE L EARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS THAT THERE WERE NO BUSINESS RECEIPTS AND THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS SIMPLY STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAKE ANY SPECIFIC SUBM ISSION , NOR HAS PRESSED THIS ISSUE BEFORE HER. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE FAILED TO TAKE NOTE OF THESE MATERIAL FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGE D IN THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE . THE CLAIM OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES IN SCHEDULE VI I & VIII OF THE BALANCE - SHEET FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA RS 2006 - 07 TO 2009 - 10 CLEARLY SHOWS THAT ONLY SMALL EXPENDITURE TOWARDS AUDIT FEE, SALARY ETC. WERE CLAIMED AND THE BANK CHARGES AND INTEREST PAID WAS CLAIMED AS A MAJOR EXPENDITUR E APART FROM INSURANCE CHARGES, RENT AND VEHICLE REPAIR AND 13 ITA NO. 4201/DEL /2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010 - 11 MAINTENANCE. ALL SUCH EXPENSES ARE VERY NOMINAL. SALARY AND ACCOUNTANCY CHARGES CLAIMED ARE ONLY SMALL AMOUNT , IF DIVIDED IN TWELVE MONTHS. LIK EWISE, RENT AND VEHICLE EXPENSES ARE ALSO VERY MINOR , IF DIVIDED BY TWELVE. THE INTEREST CHARGES ARE PAID WHILE INTEREST INCOM E IN VARIOUS YEARS IS LESS THAN OR MORE THAN THE INTEREST PAID AS PER BUSINESS NECESSITIES AS MAY BE SEEN IN THE A.Y.S 2006 - 07 TO 2008 - 09 WHILE IN A.Y. 2009 - 10 , THERE WAS NO INTEREST EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION , AGAIN INTEREST INCOME HAS BEEN DECLARED AND VARIOUS EXPENDITUR ES UNDER THE DIFFERENT HEADS WERE CLAIMED. THE LEARNED AR ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE BUS INESS RESULTS WHICH WERE REGULARLY BEEN ACCEPTED AS DECLARED AND BUSINESS EXPENDITURE WAS ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT TAKE DIFFERENT STAND WITHOUT BRINGING ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED BUSINESS EXPENDITURE AGAINST THE INCOME EARNED AND NOT SUCH EXPENDITURE WAS FOUND FAKE OR NOT RELATING TO THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE YEAR, NO SUCH EXPENDITURE WAS FOUND WHICH WAS EITHER CAPITAL OR PERSONAL IN NATURE. THER E IS NOTHING PERSONAL IN NATURE ONCE EXPENDITURE RELATES TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. 4.2 LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN THIS REGARD. 4.3 CONSIDERING THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS, WE CONCUR WITH THE ABOVE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED AR THAT GENUINE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN THE 14 ITA NO. 4201/DEL /2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010 - 11 BUSINESS CANNOT BE DENIED ONLY ON THE BASIS THAT THERE WAS NO BUSINESS RECEIPTS. THE FURTHER CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED AR REMAINED THAT SIMILAR EXPENDITURE WAS ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006 - 07 TO 2008 - 09 WHILE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10, THERE WAS NO INTEREST EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. IN THE PRESENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, INTEREST INCOME HAS BEEN DECLARED AND VARIOUS EXPENDI TURES UNDER THE DIFFERENT HEADS WAS CLAIMED. THE FURTHER CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED AR REMAINED THAT THE BUSINESS EXPENDITURE RELATES TO BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE AND DURING THE YEAR, NO SUCH EXPENDITURE WAS FOUND WHICH WAS EITHER CAPITAL OR PERSO NAL IN NATURE AND THERE IS NOTHING PERSONAL IN NATURE, ONCE EXPENDITURE RELATES TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED NOT ONLY BUSINESS INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES BUT ALSO EARNED INTERESTS ON THE FUNDS KEPT IN THE BANK. WE FIND THAT THE AO HAS MADE DISALLOWANCE MERELY ON THE BASIS THAT NO BUSINESS ACTIVITIES WERE CARRIED DURING THE YEAR, WITHOUT EXAMINING THE NEXUS BETWEEN THOSE EXPENSES AND THE PURPOSE ON WHICH THOSE WERE SPENT FOR. WE THUS SET ASIDE THE MAT TER TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. TO EXAMINE THE CLAIM AND DISPOSE OF THE ISSUE BY PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSE. T HE GROUND NO. 3 IS THUS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 15 ITA NO. 4201/DEL /2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010 - 11 5. GROUND NO. 4 IS REGARDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF AGRI CULTURAL INC OME OF RS. 3,28,534/ - . 5.1 IN SUPPORT OF THIS GROUND, THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS FORMED TO ACQUIRE LAND AND ENGAGE IN THE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVI TIES. IT DERIVES ITS INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES, INVESTMENT INCOME IN THE FORM OF DIVIDEND, INTEREST AND PROFIT/LOSS ON SALE OF SECURITIES. HE SUBMITTED THAT COPY OF PROFILE OF COMPANY WAS SUBMITTED TO THE A.O. VIDE LETTER DATED 08.12.2012 . THE A. O. STARTED THE FRAMING OF ASSESSMENT AT THE FAG END WHEN IT WAS BECOMING BARRED BY LIMITATION AND HAS TOTALLY IGNORED HIS OWN ASSESSMENT RECORD WHERE AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS REGULARLY BEING DECLARED AND ACCEPTED BY HIM IN THE EARLIER YEARS. THE ASSESSING O FFICER DID NOT MAKE ANY INQUIRY ABOUT THE CULTIVATION AND ONLY ON PRESUMPTION DISALLOWED THE CLAIM. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ALSO IGNORED THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE CULTIVATOR AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46A OF THE ITAT RULES WHICH WAS PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT ON THE REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED FROM TIME TO TIME, HE HAS RAISED DOUBTS ON THE DOCUMENTS OF SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO RAISED CERTAIN DOUBTS ON PRODUCTION OF PADDY WHICH WAS SOLD IN THE MONTH OF MARCH, 201 0 WHILE THE SAME IS HARVESTED IN THE BEGINNING OF NOVEMBER. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ALSO IGNORED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE LAND WAS GIVEN ON BATAI AND THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS NOT INTERESTED ON VARIOUS ASPECTS BUT INTERESTED ON THE OUTCOME RECEIVED. THE AR 16 ITA NO. 4201/DEL /2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010 - 11 FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SUCH DECLARATION OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS ALSO MADE IN EARLIER YEARS AND DREW OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE NOS. 80 TO 99 OF THE PAP ER BOOK, WHEREIN A CHART HAS BEEN MADE AVAILABLE ALONG WITH THE BALANCE - SHEET, SHOWING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME DECLARED WAS INCLUDED IN THE GROSS RECEIPTS WHILE DECLAR I NG THE BUSINESS INCOME. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED WAS CLAIMED FROM THE DECLARED RECEIPTS IN EACH YEAR AS IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE BALANCE - SHEET, CHART SUBMITTED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006 - 07 TO 2009 - 10 AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT RAISE ANY DOUBTS. THE LEARNED AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT AFTER GIVING THE LAND ON BATAI THE EXPENDITURE RELATING TO CULTIVATION ARE INCURRED BY THE CULTIVATOR. THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY MANAGING THE LAND AND LOOK AFTER THAT CULTIVATOR WHO IS GROWING THE CROPS SO THAT IT CAN BE ASSURED OF THE INCOM E EARNED FROM THE LAND. THE EXPENDITURE WHICH WAS NOT INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO NOT CLAIMED BY IT AND SO QUESTION OF KEEPING SUCH RECORDS DOES NOT ARISE . THE LEARNED AR ACCORDINGLY REQUESTED THAT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME DECLARED AS BUSINESS RECEIPTS BE DIRECTED TO BE ACCEPTED. 5.2 LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER , WITH THIS SUBMISSION THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE CLAIMED AGRICULTURAL INCOME THE A.O. WAS JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING THE SAME. 17 ITA NO. 4201/DEL /2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010 - 11 5.3 CONSIDERING THE ABOVE SUBMISSION, WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE RAISED NEEDS FRESH CONSIDERATION ALSO K EEPING IN MIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CLAIMED BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND THE AFF IDAVIT OF THE FARMER CONFIRMING THAT THE LAND WAS ON BATAI FILED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS REMAINED TO BE EXAMINED . T HE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THUS DIRECTED TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER VERIFYING THE ABOVE SUBMISSION OF THE ASS ESSEE AS WELL AS THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND AFTER AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE . THE GRO U ND NO. 4 IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. GROUND NO. 5 IS REGARDING THE TREATMENT OF INTEREST INCOM E OF RS. 44,35,304/ - UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AS AGAINST BUSINESS INCOME. 6.1 IN SUPPORT OF THIS GROUND, THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS REGULARLY DECLARING BUSINESS INCOME RECEIVED FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES AND INTEREST EARNED. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO CLAIMING BUSINESS EXPENDITURE BY WAY OF INTEREST EXPENSE AND BANK CHARGES , WHICH HAD DULY BEEN ASSESSED FOR THE LAST SO MANY YEARS WITHOUT ANY DISPUTE. DURING THE YEAR, THE A.O. , HOWEVER, IGNORING THE PAST ASSESSMENT RECORDS HAS ASSESSED THE INCOME BY BIFURCATING RECEIPTS FROM INTEREST UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES . HE HAS TOTALLY IGNORED THAT FOR THE LAST SO MANY YEARS UNDER THE RECEIPTS INTEREST INCOME WAS DECLARED WHILE UNDER THE EXPENDITURE, MAJOR EXPENDITURE RELATES TO 18 ITA NO. 4201/DEL /2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010 - 11 PAYMENT OF INTEREST AND BANK CHARGES. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07, THE INTEREST EXPENSES WERE MUCH MORE THAN THE INTEREST INCOME SHOWN IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09. IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08, MAJOR EXPENDITURE WAS IN RELATION TO INTEREST CHARGES. THIS P RACTICE WAS REGULARLY DECLARED IN THE INCOME TAX RETURNS AND WAS ACCEPTED WITHOUT ANY DISPUTE. LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O. HAS NOT GIVEN ANY REASON FOR DEVIATING FROM THE PAST PRACTICE AND ASSESSED THE INTEREST INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTH ER SOURCES . THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ALSO UPHELD THE SAME WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS AND THE DOCUMENTS FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK SHOWING BOOK RESULT S AND PAST PRACTICE FOLLOWED FROM YEAR TO YEAR. HE ALSO REFERRED PAGE NO. 22 OF THE PAPER BOO K I.E. COPY OF LETTER DATED 08.12.2012 FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, TO WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT RAISED ANY OBJECTION. LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT EVEN OTHERWISE INTEREST INCOME HAS TO BE ASSESSED AFTER DEDUCTING INTEREST EXPENDITURE AND IF RECEIPTS ARE INCLUDED UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURE IS CLAIMED, THE SAME IS ALSO DEDUCTIBLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND SO THERE IS NO TAX IMPLICATION. 6.2 LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, TRIED TO JUSTIFY THE ORD ERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6.3 CONSIDERING THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS, WE FIND SUBSTANCE IN THE CONTENTION OF LEARNED AR THAT WHEN INTEREST INCOME IS PART OF ASSESSEE S 19 ITA NO. 4201/DEL /2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010 - 11 BUSINESS ACTIVIT IES AND REGULARLY BEEN ASSESSED, THE ACTION OF THE A.O. IN MAKING AS SESSMENT UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SO URCES CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED. WE ALSO FIND SUBSTANCE IN THE ALTERNATIVE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED AR THAT EVEN OTHERWISE IN TEREST INCOME HAS TO BE ASSESSED AFTER DEDUCTING INTEREST EXPENDITURE. WE THUS SET ASIDE T HE MATTER TO THE FILE OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE ABOVE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH , AFTER AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. GROUN D NO. 5 IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE S. THE DECISION IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10 TH MARCH , 2015. SD/ - SD/ - ( T.S. KAPOOR ) (I.C. SUDHIR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 10 TH MARCH , 2015. RK/ - COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI
Other Referred Cases
-
Laws Referred To
-
Tax Holiday Secrets for Startups
₹0
Master The Pitch-Deck Game
₹0
1:1 Consultation on Startup Compliance
₹1
CRM Implementation Plan
₹0
Startup Dissolution Resolution
₹0
Why Lacoste Won a 20-Year Trademark Battle Against Crocodile ?
Team Counselvise - March 10, 2026
Why Meesho got ₹1,500 Crore Tax Demand ?
Team Counselvise - March 09, 2026
Residency Rules: Income Tax Act, 1961 vs Income Tax Bill, 2025 — A Subtle Yet Significant Shift!
Team Counselvise - February 18, 2026