9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 496X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act do not get attracted. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in applying the decisions of “Torque Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT”, (2011 (7) TMI 1147 - ITAT CHANDIGARH) and “ACIT vs. Grandprix Fab (P) Ltd.”, [2009 (10) TMI 659 - ITAT DELHI] inasmuch as in the present case, the payment made was not qua any work contract but was made to get a clear title of the property. For the above discussion, the grievance of the assessee is found to be justified and is accepted as such. The addition made by the A.O., as confirmed by the ld. CIT(A), is cancelled. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I .T.A. No. 6764/Mum/2013 - - - Dated:- 29-7-2015 - SHRI A.D. JAIN, JM AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, AM Appellant by Shri Haridas Bhatt R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o, by virtue of the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, this expenditure, debited to the P L account of the assessee, was disallowed. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance. 3. Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 75 lacs u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act, though it represented settlement amount paid by the third party on behalf of the assessee and it was not paid against any contract, but was out of court settlement paid to clear the title of the property. 4. The ld. D.R. has placed strong reliance on the impugned order. It has been contended that the property was given for development or construction and the assessee was to pay an amount of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmission has not be received. Hence, it is agreed between First Party and Second Party that First Party will pay ₹ 75,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Lacs only) including interest as a full and final settlement towards the development of the said property. 6. The amount of ₹ 70 lacs, as above, was thus agreed not payable by the assessee. Out of court settlement and payment of ₹ 75 lacs in pursuance thereof was made directly by the purchaser of the building to the developer. 7. In our considered opinion, the payment in question, as available from the above facts, was not in consequence of any work carried out by the contractor for the assessee, but it was agreed payment to get the title of the property cleared, by way ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
