2015 (12) TMI 1561 - HC - Income Tax

TDS u/s 194H - non deduction of tds - genuineness of the transaction - Held that - Court is satisfied that such payments could not be characterized as brokerage only for the purposes of bringing it within the ambit of Section 194H of the Act. In that sense the basic background facts concerning the MOU entered into by the Assessee with the VEEPL is no different from the MOU entered into by the Assessees in the similar cases with VEEPL as aforementioned. SEE Commissioner of Income Tax-IV v. Zebian Estate P. Ltd 2015 (11) TMI 932 - DELHI HIGH COURT - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against common order passed by ITAT for AYs 2006-07 and 2007-08 related to a development agreement.
2. Discrepancy in the party mentioned in the development agreement.
3. Similarity in clauses of the development agreement with VEEPL.
4. VEEPL's disclosure of complete books of accounts.

Analysis:
The High Court addressed the appeals by the Revenue against the ITAT's order concerning a development agreement for land development for sale to DLF Group. The Court noted the similarity of these appeals to other cases previously decided. In those cases, the Court affirmed the ITAT's orders, which were based on the ITAT's earlier decision in a related matter. The Court emphasized the consistency in its approach to such cases.

Regarding the discrepancy in the party mentioned in the development agreement, the Revenue argued that the change from Mr. Mast Ram to VEEPL was significant. However, the Court found this change immaterial to the appeals' outcome. It highlighted the similarity in relevant clauses of the development agreement with VEEPL across cases. Additionally, the Court noted that VEEPL had provided its complete books of accounts to the Assessing Officer, supporting the Assessee's position.

Consequently, the Court concluded that the discrepancy in the party named in the agreement did not alter the appeals' merits. It found no substantial question of law to consider and dismissed the appeals. The Court's decision was based on the consistency in its approach to similar cases and the evidentiary support provided by VEEPL's disclosure of accounts.