9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 164X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hority and the Assessing Authority for the assessment year 2006-07. 2. Appellant is a Private Limited Company registered under the Companies Act, engaged in the business of property development. The appellant-Company filed return of income on 20-11-2006 for the assessment year 2006-07 declaring a loss of Rs.9,60,710/-. The return of income was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, the case was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 7-10-2007. In response to the said notice, the authorized representative appeared and the matter was discussed. During the assessment year 2005-06, the assessee-company had purchased three properties in New Delhi for a total consideration of Rs.3,53,00,000/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the First Appellate Authority'), challenging the same on various grounds. 3. The Appellate Authority after considering the matter in detail found that the appellant has not produced any document to show that the Vendor has paid the stamp duty and other incidental expenditure. In the absence of necessary documents, the contention of the appellant cannot be accepted and accordingly, dismissed the appeal, by an order dated 28-2-2011. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the First Appellate Authority, the appellant approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal challenging the order passed by the Assessing Authority as well as the First App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... their books. The stamp paper clearly discloses that, it was purchased by Mr.S.K.Goel, the authorized representative of the Vendor. Hence, the addition of expenditure under Section 69-C of the Act is contrary to law. Further, as per clause 5 of the sale deeds, the Vendor shall clear and pay all the dues and Cess including property tax. Accordingly, the property tax was paid by the Vendor. Hence, the orders passed by the respondents are contrary to law and sought for allowing the appeal by setting aside the orders passed by the respondents. 6. On the other hand, Sri.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel appearing for the respondents argued in support of the orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the Appellate Authority as well as the As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le deed and other incidental charges for transfer of the Said Unit in the name of the Vendee or its nominee or nominees have been borne and paid by the Vendee from its own account. 9. Further, the order dated 25-09-2001 issued by the Inspector General of Registration, Delhi clearly discloses that the transfer duty @ 5% has to be levied on the transfer deeds of immovable property and also surcharge on stamp duty imposed by the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The appellant has paid stamp duty of Rs.17,65,000/- and Rs.10,59,000/- was paid in the form of surcharge on stamp duty and it is not the Corporation Tax. As per Clause 5 of the sale deed, till handing over of the Unit, the Vendor has to pay the dues. As per clause 6, all expenditures with regar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
