9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 233X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the absence of any substantive evidences - Decided in favour of assessee TDS u/s 194C - invoking the provisions of section 40a(ia) - non deduction of tds - Held that:- We find that the assessee before CIT(A) for the first time taken plea that the assessee is not covered under the tax audit under section 44AB of the Act in earlier years and accordingly, it is not required to comply that the provision of section 194J of the Act. We find that this is a fact that the assessee is not liable to TDS but this needs verification at the level of the AO. Hence, we remit the issue back to the file of the AO for verification purpose only. Accordingly, this issue of Revenue’s appeal is set aside and allowed for statistical purposes. Addition of ind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f has admitted that he has received ₹ 6 1,80,732/- for the plot from MIs. V K Developers. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. C 11(A) erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 1,25,68.000/- made on account of short term capital gain on transfer of development rights ignoring the fact that there is contradiction in the assessee's submission during the course of assessment proceedings and during the course of appellate proceedings and the AO has made addition on the basis of certificate received from the bank of the assessee. 3. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We find that the AO made addition of short-term capital gain for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs of late. AUSTIL PASCAL CONSALVES and so also the Defenders herein. 2. Agreed, declared and confirmed that the writing Lease Deed was executed with an intention to develop the property by the Plaintiff at his own costs and expenses and the rights though not referred in the Lease Deed but the same was with an intention to develop the property by the Leasees therein and the Plaintiff herein who shall take all the use and Plaintiff herein who shall take all the use and benefits arising out of the said plot of land including that of the T.D.R, F.S.I. Award and / or any other rights in respect of the property i.e. the suit land; 3. Agreed, declared and confirmed that the title of the property shall be confirmed as and when required ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsel for the assessee stated that it is a long term capital gain in any case and it is to be in term of lease deed dated 09-03-1988 when the assessee has acquired this property and not on the rectification deed dated 21-09-2007. Accordingly, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition by observing in Para 4.4. as under 4.4 I have considered the submissions, facts and the documents on records On a perusal of the joint development agreement, the ratio of sharing the saleable area between the Appellant and N/s. V.K. Developers would be 50% of the total saleable FSI. The Appellant was in receipt of ₹ 30,00,000 from MIs. V.K. Developers which was to be returned after the completion of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... venue is as regards to deletion of disallowance made by AO on expenses on which no TDS was deducted under section 194J of the Act by invoking the provisions of section 40a(ia) of the Act. For this Revenue contended that the CIT(A) admitted additional evidences without giving opportunity to the AO in contravention of Rule 46A of IT rules 1962. For this Revenue has raised the following ground No.3: - On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 32,4ft000/- made u/s. 40(a)(ia) by admitting additional evidence at the appellate stage without giving opportunity to AO in contravention of Rule 46A. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the case and in law, the U. CJT(A) erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 1,54,817/- made out of indirect expenses on adhoc basis ignoring the fact that assessee did not furnish any documentary evidence in support of the indirect expenses claimed by him. 11. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We find that the AO disallowed 20% of indirect expenses of ₹ 7,74,086/- at ₹ 1,54,817/- in the absence of documentary evidences of the same. The CIT(A) deleted the addition on the basis that the AO has made disallowance on adhoc basis. Aggrieved, Revenue is in appeal before us. We find that the AO has disallowed on the basis that the assessee could not produce the bills ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
