Case LawHigh Court › Iapl/283/2017 Of Principal Commissioner...

Iapl/283/2017 Of Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax Meerut v. M/S V.a.m. Resorts And Hotels P Ltd

High Court 26 Aug 2019 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · cisdb_16012018
Parties
Iapl/283/2017 Of Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax Meerut v. M/S V.a.m. Resorts And Hotels P Ltd
Date of order
26 Aug 2019
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Allowed

Case summary

In Iapl/283/2017 Of Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax Meerut v. M/S V.a.m. Resorts And Hotels P Ltd, the High Court (2019) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Decision: In view of the above, the appeal is devoid of merit and ishereby dismissed.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

Sections referenced in this judgment

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 283 of 2017Appellant :- Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax MeerutRespondent :- M/S V.A.M. Resorts And Hotels P Ltd.Counsel for Appellant :- Manu GhildyalCounsel for Respondent :- Suyash Agrawal,Suyash Agarwal Hon'ble Bharati Sapru,J.Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J. Heard Sri Manu Ghildyal, learned Counsel for the revenue andSri R.R.Agarwal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by SriSuyash Agarwal, learned Counsel for the assessee. This appeal was admitted on 04.10.2017 on the followingsubstantial questions of law:- "(1) Whether the Ld. ITAT has erred in law in deleting the order u/s 263 on theissue of development expenses when it was clear that only a small portion ofsuch development expenses was actually related to land development receipts? (2) Whether the Ld. ITAT has erred in law in deleting the order u/s 263 on theissue of agricultural income when it was clear that assessee only purchased theland on which crops were sown and sale proceed of such crops does notconstitute agricultural income? (3) Whether the Ld. ITAT has erred in law in allowing the appeal of the assesseeignoring the fact that there was a difference between gross receipts as per 26ASand gross receipts declared by the assessee when the assessee did not furnishany reconciliation statement to explain the difference?" Sri Manu Ghildyal, learned Counsel for the revenue submitsthat the order under challenge arising out of proceedings underSection 263/143(3) of the Income Tax Act dated 07.03.2014had been passed by the assessing officer. The Tribunal hadallowed the appeal of the assessee on 23.03.2019 on theground that the order under Section 263 of the Act had alreadybeen set aside, as such no addition can be made. Sri R.R. Agarwal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for theassessee has placed on record the order of this court passed inIncome Tax Appeal No.107 of 2015 dated 20.08.2019whereby the appeal of the department was dismissed whereinthe proceedings under Section 263 of the Act held to be bad. In view of the above, the appeal is devoid of merit and ishereby dismissed. The questions of law are decided in favour of the assessee andagainst the revenue. Order Date :- 26.8.2019S.P.
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan