9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 25X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the builder directly was only one form of payment of installment by the appellant either the same should have been added in the cost of acquisition and also in the sale proceeds or should have been eliminated from both as was done by the appellant - The assessee has sold property for a sale consideration - The CIT (A) deleted the addition by holding that direct payment to M/s. DLF Universal Ltd. was only one form of payment of installment to builder, M/s. DLF Universal Ltd - In one way, it has to be added to the cost of acquisition if this added to the sale proceeds for working out the taxability, income has no impact – the order of the CIT(A) upheld – Decided against Revenue. - ITA No.4197/Del./2010 - - - Dated:- 21-2-2014 - Shri U. B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in this trade is that commission/rebate/incentive, called by whatever name, is passed on to the early investors or the investors who buy the bulk of property and who make the ready cash advance. It is also an established fact that the real estate broker also passes on a part of such commission, called by whatever name, to their clients. Therefore, the commercial expediency of such payments is very much justified. So far as the specific recipients of such commission are concerned, which were treated as bogus by the Ld. AO, I find that the AO had acknowledged that the commission paid to Mrs. Raj Rana was a rebate in respect of property No. S-106, 1st floor, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi. The AO had also acknowledged that Mrs. Raj Rana receive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ove facts circumstances, I held that the payment made by the appellant to the various specific persons named in para 4 of the assessment order, be called as commission or rebate or incentive, was for the purpose of business and in accordance with the prevalent business trends in this trade hence, allowable. Accordingly, the addition made by the AO of Rs.8,34,853/- is being deleted. Further, I find that on the basis of the above adverse observation in respect of the persons named in page 4 of the assessment order, the AO was not satisfied with the genuineness of the balance commission payment of Rs.14,42,051/- well considering its genuineness as 'very weak'. In the absence of any cogent adverse finding, the disallowance of 1/5th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 5.5.2006 was categorically clear in the matter. 7. We have heard both the sides. We have perused the material available on record. The assessee has sold property no.C-192, Belverede Park, Gurgaon for a sale consideration of Rs.65 lacs vide sale deed dated 23.04.2006. The assessee has paid to the builder, M/s. DLF Universal Ltd. only Rs.48,12,568/- till 05.05.2006 and the balance amount of Rs.16,01,432/- was directly paid by the buyer to the builder, M/s. DLF Universal Ltd. The Assessing Officer made this addition. The CIT (A) deleted the addition by holding that direct payment to M/s. DLF Universal Ltd. of Rs.16,01,432/- was only one form of payment of installment to builder, M/s. DLF Universal Ltd. In one way, it has to be added t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
