9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 308X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espect of the flat being sold to two buyers would be borne by the buyers after the possession of the two flats are handed over to buyers. It does not even remotely suggest that the responsibilities for payment of charges in respect of the said flat was on the buyer from the date of the allotment. This coupled with the fact that the Tribunal records as a matter of fact that there is no dispute about the genuineness of the letter of possession dated 1 April 2007. Moreover, no statement of the buyers or other evidence, even circumstantial in nature, was brought on record to indicate that the facts are different from what has been recorded in the possession letter dated 1 April 2007. In the aforesaid facts, the view taken by the Tribunal on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessment Year, the Assessing Officer found that an amount of ₹ 2.43 Crores was shown under the head current liabilities i.e. as advances received from it buyers as under:- Sr.No. Name of Buyer Advance Received 1 M/s.Siddhi Vinayak Securities Pvt. Ltd. Rs.1.23 Crores 2 M/s. Radhika S.Gaekad ₹ 10 lakhs 3 M/s. Manomay Estates Pvt. Ltd Rs.90.75 lakhs The Assessing Officer did not accept the contention of the Respondent Assessee that the aforesaid amounts from M/s. Siddhi Vinayak Securities Pvt. Ltd. a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion was given to M/s. Siddhi Vinayak Securities (P.) Ltd. and M/s. Manomay Estates (P.) Ltd. prior to 1 April 2007. In the above view the addition of ₹ 2.14 Crores made by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the CIT (Appeals) was deleted. Moreover the impugned order of the Tribunal also records the fact that in the next Assessment Year, the Respondent has offered the income of ₹ 2.14 Crores on the sale of the flats to M/s. Siddhi Vinayak Securities Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Manomay Estates Pvt. Ltd. to tax. The same has also been accepted by the Revenue as taxable income for the next Assessment Year. 6. The grievance of the Revenue as submitted by Mr. Suresh Kumar is that the sale of the flats under consideration had in fact taken p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... housand only) as earnest money on or before issue of this Letter of Allotment. ii) ₹ 4,00,000/- (Rs. Four lakhs only) or or before handing over of the possession. Total : ₹ 1,23,75,000/-. We further confirm and acknowledge the receipt of Earnest Money of ₹ 1,19,75,000/- (Rupees Nineteen Lacs Seventy Five Thousand Only) paid to us on 15 March 2007. Clause 11: Subject to your making the said balance payment of ₹ 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four lacs only) to us, as aforesaid, a deed of sale / conveyance document for transferring all our rights in context of the said premises in your favour will be prepared and the same shall be registered with the appropriate Sub register of Assurance for effective trans ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... charges in respect of the said flat was on the buyer from the date of the allotment. This coupled with the fact that the Tribunal records as a matter of fact that there is no dispute about the genuineness of the letter of possession dated 1 April 2007. Moreover, no statement of the buyers or other evidence, even circumstantial in nature, was brought on record to indicate that the facts are different from what has been recorded in the possession letter dated 1 April 2007. In the aforesaid facts, the view taken by the Tribunal on the self evident terms of allotment and possession letter does not give rise to any substantial question of law. 10. It must also be borne in mind that the aforesaid amount which is being sought to be brought to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1958) 33 ITR 681 observed as follows:- We have often wondered why the Income tax authorities, in a manner such as this where the deduction is obviously a permissible deduction under the Income tax Act, raise disputes as to the year in which the deduction should be allowed. The question as to the year in which a deduction is allowable may be material when the rate of tax chargeable on the assessee in two different years is different; but in the case of income of a company, tax is attracted at a uniform rate and whether the deduction in respect of bonus was granted in the assessment year 1952-53 or in the assessment year corresponding to the accounting year 1952, that is in the assessment year 1953-54, should be a matter of no conseque ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
