9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 904X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e had made payment on behalf of country vide developers which was reimbursed to the assessee and it had not claimed any expenditure for these payments - Decided in favour of assesse. Disallowance of interest on PDCS - CIT(A) deleted the disallowance - Held that:- After examining the loose papers seized at the time of search at the assessee's premises, it was noticed that Interest Is paid on the PDCs only during the period of extension of PDCs and, therefore, he directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the interest on PDCs at the time of extension of the PDCs. He has further observed that if it is not possible to work out the extension of PDCs In each case, then the Assessing Officer is directed to recompute interest on PDCs after six months from the date of Issue of the PDCs. Therefore, the ground of appeal of the Revenue that the CIT(A) deleted the addition of ₹ 5,06.625/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of Interest on PDCs is factually incorrect and contrary to the order of the CIT(A). - Decided against revenue. - I.T.A. No.1731 /Del/2013, I.T.A.No. 1403/Del/2013 - - - Dated:- 24-4-2015 - Shri G. George K. And Shri T.S. Kapoor JJ. For the Appellant : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce could have been made by A.O. It was submitted that on appeal, Ld. CIT(A) has allowed relief to the extent of ₹ 5.36 lacs and confirmed the addition for the remaining amount of ₹ 42,000/-. It was further submitted that the department is in appeal for the relief granted by Ld. CIT(A) which the department has taken in its grounds of appeal vide ground No.2. Explaining the facts of the case, Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee is part of group companies of BPTP and was engaged in the business of development of land. It was submitted that the assessee had made payment for purchase of land on behalf of M/s. Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Ltd. in view of collaboration agreement entered into between these two companies entered into on 15th Sep., 2004. It was submitted that vide this agreement, the land was to be purchased on behalf of M/s. Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Ltd. and the assessee was to be remunerated by an amount of ₹ 25,000/- per acre for the total land purchased on behalf of the said company. Ld. A.R. in this respect filed a copy of collaboration agreement and invited our attention to the relevant clauses of the said agreement. Ld. A.R. further submitted that i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . had rightly made the addition and Ld. CIT(A) has not dealt the issue in its right perspective. 5. Ld. A.R. on the other hand submitted that ground No.1 of revenue s appeal is also covered in its favour in the case of group companies of assessee namely M/s. IAG Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. wherein the Tribunal vide order dated 31.10.2014 has decided the issue in favour of assessee and in this respect, our attention was invited to paper book pages 64-68. 6. We have heard rival parties and have gone through the material placed on record. We first take up the appeal of assessee. We find that ground No.3 of assessee s appeal is duly covered in its favour by the order of Tribunal in the case of group company M/s. Westland Developers Pvt. Ltd. wherein under similar facts and circumstances, the Tribunal vide order dated 22.08.2014, vide para 13 at paper book page 62, it had deleted the similar addition. For the sake of convenience, the findings of Tribunal are reproduced below: 13. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available 0.1 record. The case law relied upon by the parties has been taken into consideration. On a consideration of the same we a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are contained in para 10.10 at pages 56-57 are reproduced below: 10.10. We have also taken ourselves through the judgement of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Industrial Engineering Projects Pvt. Ltd. (cited supra) which has been relied upon before us for the proposition that reimbursement of expenses cannot be treated to be a Revenue receipt. How the judgement of the Apex Court in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals Fertilizers is applicable to the facts of the present case has not been set out in the order of the authorities nor has the Ld, DR been able to address the applicability of the said judgement to the issue at hand. We have taken ourselves through the said Judgement and seen that it proceeds on entirety different facts and circumstances and has applicability to the facts of the present case. Consequently, it is seen that the ratio of the judgements relied upon before the CIT(A) and also before us which have been discussed in the earlier part of this order no arguments have been advanced by the Revenue so as to contend how they are not applicable to the case at hand, no distinguishing fact, circumstance or position of law has been relied upon so as to come to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficer is directed to recompute interest on PDCs after six months from the date of Issue of the PDCs. Therefore, the ground of appeal of the Revenue that the CIT(A) deleted the addition of ₹ 5,06.625/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of Interest on PDCs is factually incorrect and contrary to the order of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) directed to recalculate the interest on PDCS and there was a sound logic for such direction. His direction is based on material found and seized at the time of search. In view of the above, we do not find any justification to interfere with the order of learned CIT(A) in this regard and accordingly, we reject ground No.1 of the Revenue's appeal. 12. We find that in the present case, under similar facts and circumstances the assessing officer had made additions and Ld. CIT(A) has made similar directions to recalculate the interest. Therefore, respectfully following the above tribunal order, ground No.1 of Revenue s appeal is also dismissed. 13. In nutshell, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed whereas appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed. 14. Order pronounced in the open court on 24th April, 2015. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
