ITA No. 1934/Mum/2024 Pranksters Inn Private Limited; A.Y. 2012-13

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee company filed its return of income on 15.10.2012 declaring taxable income at Nil. The case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 27.02.2015. It was observed during the assessment proceedings that assessee had a property at Lonavala whose notional income has not been declared by the assessee and therefore, the notional income from Bunglow at Lonavala was estimated at Rs. 2 lacs per month and added to the assessee’s income. The Ld. AO had thus added income from Bunglow of Rs. 16,80,000/- and disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 56,60,945/- and also added unexplained expenses u/s. 69C to the tune of Rs. 1,70,000/-. Accordingly, demand of Rs. 80,25,290/- has raised by the Ld. AO. The appeal filed before Ld. CIT(A) was dismissed.…

Legal Issues

• 1. The Appellate Order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) Income Tax Department is unjustified, illegal and bad in law as the said Order is unilaterally passed and not served upon the Appellant as required under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
• 2. Confirmation of Addition to income by way of notional Income from Bungalow at Lonavala of Rs.16,80,000/- by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) Income Tax Department is unjustified, bad in law and in total disregard to the provisions of the IT Act as the said property has been used as a business asset.
• 3. Confirmation of Depreciation disallowance of Rs.56,60,945/- by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) Income Tax Department was against the provisions of Income tax law and hence illegal and bad in law.
• 4. Confirmation of Disallowance of Rs.1,70,000/- alleged to be unexplained expenses u/s. 69C, pertaining to the maintenance of Lonavala property by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) Income Tax Department is unjustified and bad in law.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Abdul Asif Abdul Kadir Abdul v/s Income Tax Officer

  Nagpur bench

• Ambuja Neotia Hotel Ventures Ltd. vs. DCIT, Circle 8(1)

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2014-15Partly Allowed

• Adani Wilmar Limited vs The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Ahmedabad

  Ahmedabad bench

• Apcotex Industries Limited Vs. ITO Circle-15(1)(1)

  Mumbai benchAY 2013-14Allowed

• ITA No. 3201/MUM/2024

  Mumbai bench

• Diya Hygiene Flours Private Limited vs. The PCIT (Central)

  Ahmedabad bench