9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 1308X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd clear title of the immovable property. This being so, as the Revenue has not been able to dislodge any of the findings of the facts as arrived at by the Ld.CIT(A), we find no good reason to interfere with the order of the Ld.CIT(A). In these circumstances, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed. - ITA Nos.343 & 344/Mds/2017, CO No.44/Mds/2017 (in ITA No. 343/Mds/2017) & CO No.45/Mds/2017 (in ITA No.344/Mds/2017) - - - Dated:- 13-7-2017 - SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For the Assessee : Shri S.Sridhar, Adv. For the Department : Smt. R. Rajeswari, JCIT ORDER PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: ITA No.343/Mds/2017 is an appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIPL ). The process adopted was of M/s.GCIPL taking over the appellant company and consequently acquiring the said 33.64 acres of land. The agreement was for a consideration nearly ₹ 8.5 Cr. However, as there was an agreement entered into by the assessee company earlier with one Smt.P.Thillaikarasi for a consideration of ₹ 5.5 Cr. and as the assessee had received a better offer from M/s.GCIPL, the assessee had paid an amount of ₹ 3.00 Cr. to Smt.P.Thillaikarasi for removing the encumbrance created by the agreement with Smt.P.Thillaikarasi. It was a submission that similarly an amount of ₹ 2.75 Cr. was paid to Mr.Vikram Mohan by the original shareholders of the assessee company being Mr.K.Rajesh and Smt.Srivalli. It w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the takeover to be successful in so far as getting the possession of the said 33.64 acres of land, the agreement with Smt.P.Thillaikarasi had to be cancelled. This had cost the assessee ₹ 3.00 Cr. It was a further submission that for the purpose of purchasing the said land by takeover of the assessee company, the existing two shareholders had to be brought out. Consequently, the assessee had to pay ₹ 2.74 Cr. each. It was a further submission that when the agreement for the sale of the said land had been entered into by the assessee, the original documents in respect of the said land had been kept in escrow with Mr.Vikram Mohan. It was a submission that as the original documents of the assessee company had been kept with Mr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o.5.1 gives the summarized facts in the assessee s case. The AO has not challenged the genuineness of the payments. The Ld.CIT(A) has specifically recognized this fact and has also recognized the fact that the liability in respect of the said land had been incurred by the erstwhile Directors of the assessee company. The assessee admittedly has incurred this expenditure clearly for protecting the title and the title deeds of the said land. The Ld.CIT(A) has categorically given finding that the intention emerging from the factum of such huge expenditures is for securing the title of the land for selling it for profit. These facts as recorded by the Ld.CIT(A) have not been disapproved by the Revenue. The AO disallowed the said expenditure by h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
