9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1313X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... HUF, in the year 2009-10 and there was no ambiguity in the mind of the assessing officer with regard to the beneficiary, there is no case for making the protective assessment. Protective assessment is made when there is ambiguity with regard to the actual beneficiary. - having made addition substantively in the hands of HUF, the addition made on protective basis required to be deleted. - Decided against the revenue. Depreciation of windmill and computation of short term capital gains on sale of windmill - Held that:- the sale consideration of wind mill require to be bifurcated towards the land and the windmill but not the wind mill alone. The revenue during the appeal hearing did not place any material to controvert the finding given by the Ld.CIT(A).The AO has not disputed the basis for apportioning of sale price towards the land cost on the basis of indexed cost of acquisition. - The assessee has not claimed any depreciation on the land, therefore we hold that assessee has rightly allocated the sale consideration towards the windmill and the land and did not commit any error in deducting the indexed cost of land from the sale consideration of the wind mill and offering the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rial numbers, hence, search and seizure action u/s 132 was carried out on Sri K.Appa Rao and the said gold bullion weighing 5000 gms was seized u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter called as Act ). Sri K.Appa Rao is working with the assessee company and has been carrying gold bullion bars of the assessee for business purposes which he stated in his statement recorded u/s 131 and also during the course of search. The fact that the gold bullion belonged to the assessee company was not disputed and accepted by Sri R.Satish, Vice President of the company. Therefore, the AO issued notice u/s 153C of the Act and taken up the case for scrutiny. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee had purchased cut and polished diamonds of ₹ 12,00,02,396/- from Sri Grandhi Manoj Kumar (HUF) who is holding controlling stake in the company. Sri Grandhi Manoj Kumar (HUF) stated to have purchased the said diamonds from two parties viz. M/s Pankaj Exports and Astha Impex on 30.03.2010. The said diamonds were shown as closing stock in the books of M/s Grandhi Manoj Kumar (HUF)(Vendor) as at the end of the financial year 2009-10 and sold to the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he order of the Ld.CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal. During the appeal proceedings, the assessee submitted a petition for considering the following ground which was decided against him by the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.AR requested for adjudicating the following ground in this appeal. The ground raised by the assessee under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules reads as under : on facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether the Ld.CIT(A) is justified in rejecting the plea raised by the appellant that the addition of ₹ 12,00,02,396/- made by the assessing officer is outside the scope of assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153C of the Income tax act,1961 The above ground has been requested to consider under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee could not raise this issue before the ITAT as the Ld.CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee on different ground. The AR further submitted that the assessee is entitled to support the order of the Ld.CIT(A) on a ground decided by him against the assessee. 5.1 On the other hand, Ld.DR objected for admission of the above ground with regard to validity of the assessment made u/s 153C r.w.s. 143(3) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... grounds including on grounds held against him by the Commissioner without filing an independent appeal or cross-objection. 12. Rule 27 of the Rules is akin to Rule 22 Order XLI of the Civil Procedure Code. Sub-rule (1) provides that any respondent, though he may not have appealed from any part of the decree, may not only support the decree but may also state that the finding against him in the Court below in respect of any issue ought to have been decided in his favour; and may also take any cross-objection to the decree which he could have taken by way of an appeal. In case of VirdhachalamPillai v. Chaldean Syrian Bank Ltd.AIR 1964 SC 1425 in context of the said Rule the Supreme Court observed as under: 32. Learned Counsel for the appellant raised a short preliminary objection that the learned Judges of the High Court having categorically found that there was an antecedent debt which was discharged by the suit-mortgage loan only to the extent of ₹ 59,000/- and odd and there being no appeal by the Bank against the finding that the balance of the ₹ 80,000/- had not gone in discharge of an antecedent debt, the respondent was precluded from putting forward a c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad been allowed and the penalty levied by the assessing officer deleted in entirety. In fact, there was no occasion for the assessee to feel aggrieved and hence, it was not necessary for the assessee to prefer an appeal. The position in law is well settled that a cross objection, for all intents and purposes, would amount to an appeal and the cross objector would have the same rights which an appellant has before the Tribunal. 18. Section 253 of the Act provides for appeal to the Tribunal. Under sub-section (1), an assessee is granted right to file an appeal; under sub-section (2), the Commissioner is granted a right to file appeal by issuing necessary direction to the assessing officer; sub-section (3) prescribes the period of limitation within which an appeal could be preferred. Section 253(4) of the Act lays down that either the assessing officer or the assessee, on receipt of notice that an appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) has been preferred under sub-section (1) or subsection (2) by the other party, may, notwithstanding that no appeal had been filed against such an order or any part thereof, within 30 days of the notice, file a memorandum of cross objec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 6. The issue raised by the Ld. AR in the petition under Rule 27 goes to the root of the case and the validity of entire assessment and this is dependent on this ground. Hence, we consider it is necessay to adjudicate above ground under Rule 27 first, before taking up any other ground raised by the revenue in it s appeal. During the appeal hearing, the Ld.AR argued that the addition of ₹ 12,00,02,396/- was made in the hands of Sri Grandhi Manoj Kumar(HUF) for the assessment year 2010-11 on substantive basis and protectively in the hands of the assessee. The assessment in the case of the assessee was made u/s 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. There was search in the case of Sri K.Appa Rao and during the course of search, gold weighing 5000 gms. was found on 04.04.2014 which was relevant to the Financial year 2014-15 and the assessment year involved was 2015-16. Assessment for the assessment year 2011-12 was completed u/s 143(3) on 20.05.2013. There was no other material available during the course of search indicating any surplus stock escapement of income in the hands of the assessee. Since the assessment for the assessment year 2011-12 was completed, no notice u/s 153C ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rted for issue of notice u/s 153C, since the information was not related to the assessee. The Ld. AR furnished the copy of notice issued u/s 153C to the assessee dated 24.12.2014, wherein, the notice was issued consequent to search conducted in the case of Sri K.AppaRao but not M/s Bhanwarilal Jain and others. As per the information available on record, there was no other incriminating material available to the AO relating to the assessment year 2011-12 in the case of the assessee. In the instant case, the assessment was completed was 143(3) and there was no incriminating material relating to the impugned assessment year. The addition made by the AO is very much available in the books of accounts which was examined by the AO at the time of original assessment made u/s 143(3). 7.1. As per the provisions of section 153C of the Act the A.O. is required to issue the notice only on the basis of money, bullion, jewellery, other article or thing seized or requisitioned belonged to or any books of accounts or documents seized or requisitioned pertains to or pertain to the assessee. For ready reference we extract section 153C of the Act, which reads as under; 153C(1) Not withstandin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after. After taking note of the material in para 9 of the order, the position that emerges therefrom is discussed in para 10. It was specifically recorded that the counsel for the Department could not point out to the contrary. It is for this reason the High Court has also given its imprimatur to the aforesaid approach of the Tribunal. That apart, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent, argued that notice in respect of Assessment Years 2000-01 and 2001-02 was even time barred. 19. We, thus, find that the ITAT rightly permitted this additional ground to be raised and correctly dealt with the same ground on merits as well. Order of the High Court affirming this view of the Tribunal is, therefore, without any blemish. Before us, it was argued by the respondent that notice in respect of the Assessment Years 2000-01 and 2001-02 was time barred. However, in view of our aforementioned findings, it is not necessary to enter into this controversy. 20. Insofar as the judgment of the Gujarat High Court relied upon by the learned Solicitor General is concerned, we find that the High Court in that case has categorically held that it is an essential condition precedent t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us and accordingly made the addition on substantive basis in the hands of M/s Grandhi Manoj Kumar (HUF) and protectively in the hands of the assessee. In the instant case the assessee has purchased the diamonds from M/s Manoj Kumar (HUF) and the payment was made through the running account thus established the source of payment and the said diamonds were taken in to stock.There was no evidence to show that the vendor has not sold the diamonds to the assessee. The AO has completed the original assessment u/s 143(3) and accepted the purchasesand book stocks and subsequent sales declared by the assessee. Without the purchases there cannot be stocks or the sales. While making the addition on protective basis in the hands of the assessee the Ld.AO did not consider the issue of sunbsequent sales or the the stocks and there was no dispute with regard to source for purchase of the diamonds.If the purchases are considered as bogus the representing stocks or the sales also required to be reduced from the trading account except the profit element of profit on sales.Once the assessing officer accepts the sales or the stocks there is no case for suspecting the purchases, unless the assessing of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t addition which was made on substantive basis in the hands of the overseas companies was also made in the hands of Sh. Ajay Kalsi on protective basis and also the same amount was added to the income of the assessee on protective basis. Therefore, addition of the same amount was made by the Assessing Officer in the hands of three persons i.e. (a) the overseas companies, (b) Sh. Ajay Kalsi and (c) Smt. Mala Kalsi which was unwarranted and unjustified. The additions made in case of the overseas companies u/s 6(3) is not relevant to the case of the assessee as she is only a shareholder, and was not entitled to derive any benefit. During the year under consideration the assessee did not derive any benefit for which she is liable to pay taxes thereon as per the Indian Tax Laws. It is not out of place to mention that when addition was already made in the hands of the overseas companies on substantive basis treating them as residents in India, there is no justification for the Assessing Officer to make such an addition in the hands of a share holder on protective basis, when no benefit was derived by her from these companies to protect the interest of revenue. It is noted that without ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C on total income of ₹ 23,07,01,225/-. The AO made the following additions to the returned income . (i) Short term capital gains on sale of windmill Rs.1,85,31,098/- (ii) Short admission of rent from Jukaso Hotel Rs.11,58,990/- (iii) Disallowance of expenditure relating to advance paid for premises Rs.8,10,000/- (iv) Disallowance of expenditure relating to exempt income Rs.97,98,498/- (v) Commission paid to M/s G.Manoj Kumar (HUF) Rs.52.58,428/- (vi) Discount on sales relating to customers provided b M/s G.Manoj Kumar (HUF) Rs.87,64,043/- Against the order of the AO, the assesse filed appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assesse. Against the order of the CIT(A), the assesse carried the matter to the Tribunal and the revenue has filed cross appeal in ITA 54/Viz/2018. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... installation and development of the land cost of ₹ 1,18,00,000/- and the written down value of windmill including the land cost was ₹ 13,191/-, thus no separate allocation of sale consideration towards the land cost is necessary. Thus held that the short term capital gains on sale wind mill works out ₹ 3,23,80,699/- and accordingly made the addition of ₹ 1,85,31,098/- towards short admission of capital gains on sale of land. 14. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) has verified the details of the fixed assets from the balance sheet and found that the assessee has correctly classified the wind mill under the plant and machinery and the land was shown independently in the fixed assets. According to the Ld.CIT(A), the composite value of wind mill cost was ₹ 6,87,05,441/- and accordingly given a finding that the assessee has claimed the depreciation only on wind mill excluding cost of the land and the written down value of the wind mill was ₹ 13,191/- as on 31.03.2012 apart from the land cost at ₹ 1,18,00,000/-. Therefore held that there was no justification for denying the cost of acquisition of the land and accordingly allowed the appeal of the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see has sold the wind mill along with the land for a consideration of ₹ 3,23,93,890/- and shown the sale price of wind mill at ₹ 1,38,62,792/- and the price of the land was taken at ₹ 1,93,71,098/-. It is evident from the above facts that the sale price of wind mill including the cost of land was ₹ 3,23,93,890/-. Hence the sale consideration of wind mill require to be bifurcated towards the land and the windmill but not the wind mill alone. The revenue during the appeal hearing did not place any material to controvert the finding given by the Ld.CIT(A).The AO has not disputed the basis for apportioning of sale price towards the land cost on the basis of indexed cost of acquisition. The Ld.DR did not place any material to bifurcate and determine the sale consideration towards the land and the windmill. The assessee has transferred the land also along with the wind mill. The assessee has not claimed any depreciation on the land, therefore we hold that assessee has rightly allocated the sale consideration towards the windmill and the land and did not commit any error in deducting the indexed cost of land from the sale consideration of the wind mill and offering ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade the addition of ₹ 11,58,990/- after reducing the sum for repairs @30% as per section 24 of IT Act.. 21. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assesse went on appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO. 22. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal. During the appeal hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the premises could not be handed over to the tenant as per the agreement and handed over the premises on 01.11.2012 and accordingly the rent was collected. The assessee argued that since the premises was not ready for occupation, the right to receive the rent did not arise to the assessee even though there was an agreement. As per the agreement the assessee was obliged to surrender the premises to the tenant on 01.09.2012 which the assessee could not fulfill the promise. In the facts and circumstances, the Ld.AR argued that the assesse has rightly collected the rent from 01.11.2012 and offered the same to income and there was no case for making the addition. 23. On the other hand, the Ld.DR supported the orders of the lower authorities. 24. We have heard both the parties and peru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (1) and accordingly made the addition. 26. On appeal before the CIT(A), the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition since the assesse failed to produce rental agreement. 27. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. During the appeal hearing, the Ld.AR reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities. But no evidence was produced to support the claim. In the absence of any evidence to establish the genuineness of the payment, nature of payment, reasons for payment, reasons for non recovery of the advance, and the copy of lease agreement we are unable to accept the claim of the assessee and decline to interfere with the order of the Ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, we uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the assessee. 28. Ground No.6 and 7 are related to the disallowance of expenditure relatable to earning of exempt income u/s 14A of I.T.Act. The assessee had invested a sum of ₹ 20,54,77,370/- in the shares of unlisted company M/s Vaibhav Sky Scapes Ltd(VSSL) and received the dividend income of ₹ 9,90,000/- and claimed exemption u/s 10(34) of I.T.Act. The AO called for the explanation as to why the expenditu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eld as under : 17. The issue is covered by a judgement of a Division Bench of this Court dt.6th Sept.2016 in CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. IT Appeal No.186 of 2013 [reported at (2016) 290 CTR (P H) 76: (2016) 141 DTR (P H) 145 Ed.J. Before dealing with the judgement, it is necessary to note a few facts. ₹ 521 crores was the assessee s total business expenditure by way of interest on loans. The assessee s business assets were about ₹ 26,930crores of which ₹ 1,014 crores were invested in its wholly owned subsidiaries. It is from the investment in its subsidiaries that the assesse earned ₹ 36.06 crores by way of dividend. However, it is important to note that the assesse had free funds of its sown of a sum of ₹ 17.275 crores available to it. Thus, as against the investment of ₹ 1,014crores which yielded dividend of ₹ 36.06 crores, the assesse had available to it ₹ 17,275 crores. As Mr.Ved Jain, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assesse, rightly submitted, the presumption is that the assesse used its own funds while making the investment of ₹ 1014 crores in the subsidiaries. There is nothing to rebut this presumption. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eld that in the absence of exempt income, no disallowance is called for u/s 14A, accordingly deleted the addition. (a) Hon ble Chennai High Court in the case of Redington(India) Ltd. 77 Taxmann.com 257 (b) Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of the Chem Investments 61 Taxmann.com 118 (c) Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Sintex Industries Ltd. 82 Taxmann.com 171 36. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before us. 37. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. In the case of M/s Radhakrishna Automobiles Pvt. Ltd , we have held that in the absence of exempt income, there is no case for disallowance u/s 14A r.w.Rule 8D of Income Tax Act. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the assessee did not earn exempt income during the year under consideration. Similarly, it is an undisputed fact that M/s Vaibhav Skyscape Ltd. is a subsidiary company of the assessee and the assessee has madethe investments in the subsidiary company out of interest free funds available to the assessee. Therefore, facts of the case for the year under consideration is identical to the facts of the case of the earlier assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ank account and the source of credit was explained. And there was no scope for treating the same as unexplained. Similarly the SBH account of Sri Grandhi Manoj Kumar shows the debit entry of 37,50,000/-, hence the Ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition. 42. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal. 43. We have heard both the cases and perused the material placed on record and the facts of the case are extracted form the order of the Ld.CIT(A) which reads as under : 4.4(a)The facts of this issue are that the assessee had originally given anamount of ₹ 3,60,00,000/- in six instalments to KVMAS (Karnataka Arya Vysya Mahasabha) to develop a site belonging to them at Bangalore. The company entered into an agreement with KVMAS on 03.06.2011 and created a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) in the name and style of VSTPL (M/s. Vaibhav Sign Towers Pvt. Ltd) to undertake the project. Subsequently, the amount of ₹ 3,60,00,000/- was transferred to VSTPL, after the demise of the Managing Director, Sri GrandhiMarioj Kumar on 07.02.2012.Subsequent to the incident, the project was abandoned and company was closed. There was a tripartite agreement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly question to be answered is whether the amount was transferred to HUF or not. It is the explanation of the learned AR of the appellant that KVMAS paid the amount to the appellant on 30.11.2013. There was an observation from the bankers that the funds of the company should not be diverted to any other purposes. In order to not to hamper the relation with the bankers, an entry was passed transferring the deposit to HUF on 31.03.2013. 4.4(e).On examining the bank accounts and the ledger accounts, I find that thecredit of ₹ 3,60,00,000/- in the books of the appellant has been explained. In other words, the source of credit, identity of the party and genuineness of the fund coming to the accounts of the appellant cannot be doubted. Therefore, there is no scope to treat the credit of ₹ 3,60,00,000/- in the books of the appellant as unexplained. What the appellant had made is only a book entry affecting the transfer in the books of HUF and the appellant. Regarding the observations of the Assessing Officer with respect to VSTPL, the entries were reversed due to the nonavailability of funds. However, on subsequent dates they were repaid and honoured. Accordingly, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he AO, the assesse stated that though the assessee had entered in to lease agreement with the assesse with M/s Jukaso Hotels Ltd, on 16.07.2012 for letting out of the property for a monthly rent of ₹ 8,27,850/- per month, there was downward revision of rental agreement due to the business exigencies. Accordingly entered into supplementary lease agreement on 01.08.2014 and reduced the rent from ₹ 8,27,850/- to 6,00,000/- p.m. The assesse has provided both the agreements before the AO. The AO observed that the rent agreement dated 16.07.2012 was for a monthly rent of ₹ 8,27,250/- was a registered agreement and subsequent rent agreement was an unregistered agreement, hence held that the registered agreement gives right to the assesse to collect the rent due and to enforce the same. The AO also observed that the assesse had admitted the rentals from M/s Kankatala Textile Pvt. Ltd. in the nearby location @39.41 sq.ft., hence the rent charged by the assesse @38.32 sq.ft. as per the original agreement in the case of Jukaso Hotels was reasonable. Further, the AO has observed that there was debit balance of ₹ 58,44,733/- as on 31.03.2014 in the books of the assesse. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 72 lakhs but not ₹ 99.34 lakhs. I am not inclined to agree with the argument of the appellant due to the reason that there is no infringement to his right to receive the rent. There are no circumstances to display that the rentals are hypothetical in nature. There is no scope of probability or improbability of not receiving / realizing the rents. Though, there is a force in the argument of the learned Authorised Representative of the appellant regarding real income, no credence can be given to the supplementary lease agreement. It is an indisputable fact that the right to receive rent has arisen due to the registered lease agreement not by supplementary lease agreement. Supplementary lease agreement without registration cannot be enforced in the eyes of law. The right that arises out of agreement has not been exhausted by the appellant in the event of failure on the part of lessee. The appellant cannot suo-motto reduce the rentals without the consent of the other party. The party (lessee) would have shown the outstanding rentals in its books. No details were filed before me in this regard. In the instant case, there is sno confirmation from the lessee that the rental ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e required to be claimed as per the provisions of the Act. The assesse cannot suomoto reduce the income accrued during the year and reduce the rent by making the subsequent lease agreement without proper evidence from the tenant. Further the assesse has also shown debit balance of ₹ 58,44,733/- as receivable from the tenant. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and the same is upheld. The appeal of the assesse is dismissed. ITA No.56/Viz/2018- A.Y.2015-16(Revenue) 49. Ground No.1 and 2 are related to the disallowance made u/s 14A r.w.Rule 8D in respect of the investments made in M/s Vaibhav Sky Scapes Ltd., a subsidiary company of the assessee. During the year under consideration, the assessee did not receive any dividend. The AO has made the disallowance u/s 14A r.w.rule 8D of income tax Rules and the Ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition holding that no disallowance is called for in the absence of exempt income , placing reliance on the decision of this Tribunal and the Hon ble High Courts as under : M/s Radhakrishna Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.511/Viz/2017 and Sri D.Veerabhadra Reddy(HUF) in ITA No.263/Viz/2014 and the following ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 98,120 Distribution of fans, glasses, plates and water filter (pure it) for students at village schools 78,706 Distribution of fans, water tanks, benches etc. for students at village schools 2,450 Distribution of Sintex tanks at village schools 4,770 Distribution of vegetables to general public on HUD HUD cyclone 2,500 Helping to Oldage Homes Mahavir International Service Trust 25,000 Mahavir International service trust 17,235 Staff conveyance expenses while CSR activity GVMC, Visakhapatnam 22,500 Ward beautification charges Kalinga fishermen welfare fund 25,000 Welfare fund at Kalinga Fishermen due to HudHud Cyclone Total 15,88,201 53. The AO observed that the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The AO observed that the rent agreement dated 16.07.2012 was for a monthly rent of ₹ 8,27,250/- was a registered agreement and subsequent rent agreement i.e. supplementary rent agreement dt.01.08.2014 was an unregistered agreement. Therefore, the AO held that the registered agreement gives right to the assesse to collect the rent and to enforce the same. The AO also observed that the monthly rent of ₹ 8,27,250/- is comparable and reasonable in the vicinity. Further, the AO has observed that there was debit balance of ₹ 58,44,733/- as on 31.03.2014 in the books of the assesse. Therefore, held that the difference in rent offered by the assesse required to be brought to tax, accordingly made the addition of ₹ 19,18,650/-. 58. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee went on appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) upheld the addition made by the AO holding that the assessee cannot suomoto decrease the rentals. Accordingly, the Ld.CIT(A) rejected the claim of the assessee and confirmed the addition 59. Aggrieved by the order the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 60. During the appeal hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
