9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 246X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed the Miscellaneous Application from our order dated 19.08.2013 for the assessment year 2007-08 in which the claim of the assessee was that grounds No. 4 & 5 raised in the said appeal were not decided by this Bench. Accordingly, the Misc. Application was decided vide our order dated 30.01.2014 where there was a mistake apparent from record found and accordingly the order to decide grounds No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hit Kumar Garg and Sh. Harjinder Singh and if at all, the addition should have been made in their hands. The Developers Tata Housing had also paid the advance/earnest money to Sh. Mohit Garg and Sh. Harjinder Singh directly." 2. As regards ground No.4, the brief facts are that there is assessee's grievance over non-deduction of Rs.45 lacs paid to Sh. Vijay Umat for rescinding with the sale agreem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acs having been repaid on 27.11.2007, another instalment of repayment of Rs.40 lakh in cash has further been paid on 2.4.08 (in support cash receipt issued by both the intendent buyers has been adduced at page book. Sr. No. 56 & 56 respectively) and Rs. 10 lakh has been brought in cash for repayment in full and final settlement of the Howra/agreement, which goes to show that the second sale transa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed not matured, repayment of Rs. 45 lakhs has been claimed, the said transaction outrightly denied by the so-called buyer]. The Ld. CIT(A) rejected the ground of the assessee. 5. We have perused the facts of the case and material available on record. We find no infirmity in the order of the ld CIT(A), who has rightly concurred with the views of the A.O. and has not admitted the additional ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
