9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 63X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal payment made to the owners of the land as allowable u/s 37 - Held that:- Payment for acquiring land cannot be said disbursement of expense or not claimed as expense. In case of owner i.e. assessee effectively the owner of the land is purchasing the same and selling all the rights in said land at a cost of land plus ₹ 35,000 per acre. Therefore, the cost of land plus ₹ 35,000 per acre is the sale cost which effectively claimed but due to accounting entries, such transaction gets squared up to the extent of cost of land, as such owner including the assessee is directly crediting ₹ 35,000 per acre in its P&L account. - Revenue appeal dismissed. - ITA No. 1077/DEL/2015 - - - Dated:- 30-5-2018 - Shri N. K. Saini, Accountant Member And Ms Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member Appellant by : Sh. DR Kaushlendra Tiwari, Sr. Respondent by : Sh. Ajay Bhagwani, CA ORDER Per Suchitra Kamble, JM This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order dated 21/11/2014 passed by CIT(A)-XXX, New Delhi for Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under:- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee being paid out of its undisclosed income. The Assessing Officer further made addition by holding that sum of ₹ 52,51,250/- shown by the assessee as additional payment made to the farmers in its books of account is nothing but a made up affair and the payments made are not genuine and hence not admissible. Therefore, an amount of ₹ 52,51,250/- was added to the income of the assessee on a/c of additional payments. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT (A). The CIT (A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. The Revenue is before us. 5. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer and submitted that the additions made by the Assessing Officer are just and as per the records and evidences produced before the Assessing Officer. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that Ground No. 1 is covered in favour of the assessee by the Co-ordinate Benches in various decisions more specifically in case of Sunglow Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT being ITA No. 2156/del/2015 order dated 14/5/2018. As regards Ground No. 2, the Ld. AR submitted that the Hon'ble High Court confirmed the Tribunal decision in favour of the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the Assessing Officer is directed to recomputed 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. Since the facts of the present case are identical to the facts involved in the aforesaid referred to case of M/s IAG Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. So, respectfully following the aforesaid referred to order dated 31.10.2014, we do not see any valid ground to interfere with the findings given by the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we do not see any merit in the grounds of the assessee as well as the department, on this issue. 11.So, respectfully following the aforesaid ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the impugned orders as well as the material referred to before us. The first and foremost thing which is quite apparent from the perusal of the profit and loss account is that assessee has not claimed any such expenses for sums aggregating to ₹ 1,05,86,958/-, nor it has been claimed in the computation of income. The assessee company purchases the land from the farmers and land owners and transfers the same to CWPPL and for such operations the assessee company is only entitled for remuneration of ₹ 35,000/- per acre over and above the land cost. The entire payment for the purchase of sale is not routed through profit and loss account albeit directly debited/credited to the CWPPL account. This is evident from the copy of the ledger account of CWPPL and copy of profit and loss account filed before us. The ld. CIT(A) has rejected this contention of the assessee mainly on the ground that registration is done in the name of the assessee and the ownership of the land also lies with the assessee. However, in the order he himself has noted from the agreement that, in lieu of transferring of development right to CWPPL, the assessee company only gets commission or charges of & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
