Case Law Details
Anthony P Lewis Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
ITAT Mumbai held that as per Section 56(2)(ix) of the Act money received as advance would be treated as income liable to tax in the hands of recipients under the head ‘Income from Other Sources’ provided such advance is forfeited and the negotiations do not resulted in transfer of the capital assets.
Facts- The Appellant at the relevant time was engaged in the business of dealing in buying and selling of land, real estate property and giving properties on a lease.
Reassessment proceedings were initiated against the Appellant u/s. 147 of the Act as notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued and served upon the Appellant. Thereafter, notice u/s. 142(1) and 143(2) were issued and served on the Appellant. Vide order dated 30.03.2014, passed u/s. 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act, AO computed income of the Appellant at INR 50,22,52,930/- after making addition of Long Term Capital Gains of INR 49,50,11,429/-, and addition of INR 70,60,000/- in connection with the advance of INR 51,00,000/- and INR 19,60,000/- received and retained by the Appellant as non-refundable advance relating to sale of properties.
CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
