ITO v. Fortune Land & Housing (P) Ltd.

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2023 TaxPub(DT) 3713 (Del-Trib) IN THE ITAT, DELHI BENCH CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, J.M. & M. BALAGANESH, A.M. ITO v. Fortune Land & Housing (P) Ltd. ITA No. 3503/DEL/2018 16 June, 2023 Assessee by: Sahil Sharma, Advocate, & Saurabh Nandy, Advocate Revenue by: Maimun Alam, Senior Departmental Representative ORDER *Chandra Mohan Garg, J.M.* This appeal has been filed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals)-3 New Delhi dated 8-3-2018 for assessment year 2015-16. 2. The ground raised by the revenue as under:- (1) Learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in law and on the facts of the case in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,91,62,716 made by the assessing officer on account of the additional compensation of land received by the assessee from HUDA. 3. The learned Senior Departmental Representative pressing into service sole ground of revenue submitted that the assessing officer in Para 8.2 of assessment order rightly held that the assessee-company was the legal owner of the land acquired by the HUDA it was not under legal obligation to transfer the same to Orris Infrastructure (P) Ltd. (OIPL). The learned Senior Departmental Representative also submitted that in said Para the assessing officer recorded categorically findings that the claim of assessee that the land acquired by HUDA is pertains to Orris Infrastructure (P) Ltd. does not have any locus standai. The learned Departmental Representative submitted that therefore the assessing officer was right in treating the entire enhancedd compensation received by the assessee-company at its business receipts because the land under question was never transfer to Orris Infrastructure (P) Ltd.. The learned Senior Departmental Representative submitted that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has granted relief to the assessee without any basis therefore the first appellate order may kindly be set aside by restoring that of the assessing officer. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2023 TaxPub(DT) 3713 (Del-Trib)

IN THE ITAT, DELHI BENCH

CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, J.M. & M. BALAGANESH, A.M.

ITO v. Fortune Land & Housing (P) Ltd.

ITA No. 3503/DEL/2018

16 June, 2023

Assessee by: Sahil Sharma, Advocate, & Saurabh Nandy, Advocate

Revenue by: Maimun Alam, Senior Departmental Representative

ORDER

Chandra Mohan Garg, J.M.

This appeal has been filed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals)-3 New Delhi dated 8-3-2018 for assessment year 2015-16.

2. The ground raised by the revenue as under:-

(1) Learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in law and on the facts of the case in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,91,62,716 made by the assessing officer on account of the additional compensation of land received by the assessee from HUDA.

3. The learned Senior Departmental Representative pressing into service sole ground of revenue submitted that the assessing officer in Para 8.2 of assessment order rightly held that the assessee-company was the legal owner of the land acquired by the HUDA it was not under legal obligation to transfer the same to Orris Infrastructure (P) Ltd. (OIPL). The learned Senior Departmental Representative also submitted that in said Para the assessing officer recorded categorically findings that the claim of assessee that the land acquired by HUDA is pertains to Orris Infrastructure (P) Ltd. does not have any locus standai. The learned Departmental Representative submitted that therefore the assessing officer was right in treating the entire enhancedd compensation received by the assessee-company at its business receipts because the land under question was never transfer to Orris Infrastructure (P) Ltd.. The learned Senior Departmental Representative submitted that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has granted relief to the assessee without any basis therefore the first appellate order may kindly be set aside by restoring that of the assessing officer.