9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1321X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is not one and the same transaction - As they are two independent transactions, the loss sustained in one transaction cannot be set off against the profit made in the other transaction - Decided against Revenue. Genuineness of commission - Held that:- Following assessee's own case [2006 (9) TMI 147 - KARNATAKA High Court] - The allowance of the commission payment requires interference - Decided in favour of Revenue. - ITA No. 338 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 19-11-2013 - N Kumar And Rathnakal, JJ. For the Appellant : Sri K.V. Aravind Sri B. Pramod, Adv For the Respondent : Sri S. Parthasarathi, Adv JUDGEMENT:- PER : N Kumar In this appeal, the appellant has raised the following substantial questions of law: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubsequently the assessee company realized that the polymer business was not a prudent venture and so the manufacturing unit was sold to one M/s L.G. Polymers India Ltd., on 10.07.1997 as a going concern for a consideration of Rs.79,86,30,304-00. In the said transaction, they earned a profit of Rs.11,41,05,203-00. Though the assessee offered the land at Gujarat also to the said purchaser, he was not inclined to take the said land. Therefore, they surrendered the said land to Government of Gujarat for Rs.67 lakhs. Thus they incurred capital loss of Rs.2,31,34,220-00. 3. The Assessing Authority was of the view that the land was part of M/s Hindustan Polymers Ltd., Therefore though two separate individuals are involved, the transaction is one ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss of Rs.2,31,34,220-00. Thus no industrial activity was started in that piece of land. The said land was not utilized for the industry and therefore in the light of the aforesaid undisputed factual position it held that order passed by the appellate authority is valid and legal and no case for interference is made out. 7. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed. 8. The learned Counsel for the Revenue assailing the impugned order contends that admittedly the land in Gujarat was purchased for expanding the polymer unit of the assessee. Their own admission shows that the assessee has spent towards salaries, wages, conveyance, telephone, interest etc., in connection with the project to be established in the land purchased ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed, it was fairly submitted by the learned Counsel for the assessee that the said question has been decided by this Court in the assessee s case only on 15.09.2006 in ITA No.12/1999, where it has been held that the allowance of the commission payment requires interference. Accordingly, for the reasons set out in ITA 12/1999, the finding recorded by the Tribunal as well as the first appellant authority is hereby set aside. The said allowance is disallowed and the substantial question of law is answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. 12. In so far as third and fourth substantial question of law is concerned, already in the earlier orders the said findings are set aside and the matter is now remanded back to the Assessing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
