9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (2) TMI 619 - AT - Income TaxDenial of deduction of cost of selling - denial on the ground that in the agreement to sale with DSKDL there is no mention of this cost to be incurred by the assessee and that the amount has not been quantified at all - Held that - We find an identical issue had come up before the Tribunal in the case of other group members namely Smt. Shilpa M. Kulkarni and other connected appeals has decided the issue in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue observing as when the AO in the case of D.S. Kulkarni & Co. has also raised similar queries as raised by the present AO and after elaborately recording the various details submitted by the assessee in the order sheet, copies of which are placed at pages 329 to 343 of the paper book has accepted the MOU as genuine and no addition/disallowance was made on account of such development expenditure which was claimed by the assessee as cost of selling, therefore, we find no reason as to how and why the AO in the case of the present assessee held that the socalled MOU was an afterthough and self-created and self-serving document especially when the order passed in the case of D.S. Kulkarni & Co. is prior to the assessment order passed in the instant case and the same has not been disturbed by the CIT u/s.263 of the I.T. Act till now. As following the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of other group members and in absence of any contrary material brought to our notice by the Ld. Departmental Representative against the order of the Tribunal, we find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) allowing the claim of cost of selling amounting - Decided against revenue
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and its impact on the sale deed. 2. Allowability of development expenses as a deduction in computing short-term capital gains. 3. Whether the refund of money to the buyer constitutes a colorable device to reduce tax liability. 4. Consistency in the treatment of similar transactions within the same group. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Validity of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and its Impact on the Sale Deed The assessee sold lands to DSK Developers Ltd. (DSKDL) and claimed a deduction for development expenses based on an MOU dated 16-08-2007. The Assessing Officer (AO) rejected the MOU as it was neither registered nor notarized and was presented late in the proceedings. The AO viewed the MOU as a self-serving document, not mentioned in the sale deeds, and thus, not enforceable. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) found that the MOU, although not mentioned in the sale deed, was a valid document outlining the contractual obligations for development work. The Tribunal noted that similar MOUs had been accepted in related cases within the same group, establishing a precedent for consistency. Issue 2: Allowability of Development Expenses as a Deduction in Computing Short-Term Capital Gains The AO disallowed the deduction of Rs. 10,79,82,051/- claimed by the assessee for development expenses, arguing that the expenses were not quantified in the sale deeds and appeared to be an afterthought. The CIT(A) and ITAT, however, allowed the deduction, emphasizing that the development work was a contractual obligation as per the MOU and Deed of Confirmation. The ITAT referenced several judicial precedents, including the cases of V.A. Vasumati vs. CIT and Dr. P. Rajendran vs. CIT, which support the allowance of expenses incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer, irrespective of whether they were incurred before or after the sale deed. Issue 3: Whether the Refund of Money to the Buyer Constitutes a Colorable Device to Reduce Tax Liability The AO viewed the refund of money to DSKDL as a colorable device to reduce tax liability, citing the timing and nature of the transactions. The CIT(A) and ITAT disagreed, noting that the refund was a result of the contractual obligations under the MOU and subsequent changes in the development project. The ITAT highlighted that the refund was accounted for in DSKDL's books, reducing their work-in-progress, thereby negating any revenue loss. The Tribunal also referenced the principle of real income, emphasizing that only actual income, not hypothetical or notional income, should be taxed. Issue 4: Consistency in the Treatment of Similar Transactions Within the Same Group The ITAT emphasized the importance of consistency in the treatment of similar transactions within the same group. The Tribunal noted that in the case of other group members, similar MOUs and development expenses had been accepted by the AO without any disallowance. Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Berger Paints India Ltd. vs. CIT, the ITAT stressed that the revenue cannot deviate from its accepted stance in similar cases without just cause. This principle of uniformity was a key factor in the Tribunal's decision to uphold the CIT(A)'s order allowing the deduction. Conclusion The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the deduction of Rs. 10,79,82,051/- for development expenses in computing short-term capital gains. The Tribunal found the MOU to be a valid document outlining the contractual obligations for development work, consistent with similar accepted transactions within the same group. The refund of money to DSKDL was not seen as a colorable device but a legitimate business transaction. The principle of real income and the need for consistency in tax treatment were crucial in the Tribunal's decision. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
|
