9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1075X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mically high figure of ₹ 3,04,136/- per sq. mtr. of land vis- -vis ₹ 2750/- per sq. mtr. assigned by the stamp authorities, if the method suggested by the Revenue for allocation of cost on the basis of land area is accepted. This crucial aspect also reinforces the claim of the assessee that the Cost of Sales requires to be determined on the basis of FSI allocated vis- -vis global FSI regardless of lesser area allocated for putting up construction. No hesitation to set aside the order of the CIT(A) and reverse the action of the AO. We find considerable merit in the plea raised by the assessee for computation of Cost of Sales of land and incidental costs towards AUDA charges etc. on the parameters of FSI sold as computed by the assessee. The additions made by the AO towards alleged suppression of profit arising from sale of land and excess claim of incidental expenses attributable to such sale are therefore reversed. Disallowance u/s 14A - utilization of interest free funds for investments yielding tax free income - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) has rightly approached the issue and deleted the proportionate disallowance of interest expenditure under Rule 8D(2)(ii) on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al addition of ₹ 107,17,79,584/- made by AO to the closing stock of land. 2. Ld. CIT (A) erred in law and on facts confirming view taken by AO that proportionate land cost allowable on sale to co- developer is to be worked out based upon area of land available and not upon area of FS1 available. 3. Ld. CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in recasting trading a/c of land to confirm addition to closing stock of land on the alleged ground that the appellant changed method of accounting, valuation of closing stock allocation of cost to Profit Loss a/c in subsequent year. 4. Ld. CIT (A) erred in law and on facts directing AO to recompute allocation of AUDA charges, FCCD interest Township infra expenses based upon area of land sold and not as allocated by appellant on the basis of FST area. 5. Without prejudice to the above contention that working of closing stock of land as per appellant be accepted, ld CIT (A) ought to have directed AO that addition to closing stock be allowed as opening stock of the next year. 6. Ld. CIT (A) erred in law and on facts confirming disallowance by AO of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 77; 46,81,276/- to ₹ 19,48,142/-. 4. Ground Nos. 1 to 4 of the assessee s appeal and Ground Nos. 1 to 8 of the Revenue s appeal concern correctness of claim of Cost of Sales and closing value of land owing to transfer of co-development rights. 5. As noted from case records, the assessee is a Private Limited Company, engaged in the development of township known as 'Applewoods . The return of income for AY 2012-13 was filed on 30.09.2012 showing loss of ₹ 7,01,72,900/-. It was noticed by the AO in the course of scrutiny proceedings that the Assessee has purchased 511707 sq. mtr. of land for the purpose of development of township and also applied for the development of same under Regulation for Residential Township-2009. The authority granted permission vide their letter dated 28.05.2010. The Assessee had prepared the construction plan as per the terms of Regulation for Residential Township 2009 which was approved by the Authority and as per the approved plan which had been prepared in terms of township regulations:- (a) The Assessee has provided for 120446 sq. mtr. land for the purpose of park, school, hospital, cros ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ft., which comes to 41.24% of total FSI. The cost of entire FSI available on land is of ₹ 425,75,78,322/- and 41.24% thereof comes to ₹ 175,58,59,666/-, which is the cost of the FSI sold. The attention is invited to clause 3 of co-development agreement which clearly mentions that the Developer i.e. AEPL will ensure availability of 26,98,000 sq ft of FSI to Co-Developers. Clans 10 (b) of the Co- Development Agreement also mentions that in case Developer could for any reason make lesser FSI available to Co-Developer, then consideration shall stand reduced @ ₹ 927 per Sq Ft of such deficiency. 5.2.2 Regarding AUDA charges for Co-development sale of ₹ 23,45,80,784/-, the Assessee explained that the said charges is allocated in proportion to the total FSI available to FSI relating to FSI sold on a particular land area. The total AUDA charges incurred are of ₹ 56,88,07,450/- and 41.24% thereof comes to ₹ 23,45,80,784/-, which pertains to FSI sold. 5.2.3 Similarly, regarding the FCCD interest for Co-development sale of ₹ 29,48,89,883/-, the Assessee stated that FCCD interest paid for entire land is also taken in pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gainst the total available FSI of 65,42,064 sq. ft. Thus, on the balance land, Applewoods is not entitled to construct anything more than the balance FSI i.e. 65,42,064 sq. ft less 26,98,000 sq. ft. i.e. 38,44,064 sq. ft. only. Thus, the value of balance land available to Applewoods Estate Pvt. Ltd. accordingly goes down proportionately. In view of this, the working of cost of land taken in proportion to FSI sold vis-a-vis total FSI available is correct. 5.3 The aforesaid explanation submitted by the assessee in the letter dated 11.03.2015 was not found to be acceptable by the Assessing Officer for the reasons slated by him in the assessment order, which are as under: a) The assesses company is engaged in the business of development of integrated township comprising of commercial residential development. b) The assessee company purchased the land and not only Floor Space Index (FSI for short). FSI comes to virtue of purchase of land c) The rules governing FSI changes from time to time and therefore, the FSI available on a particular area of land may vary from time so time. The present FSI for the said area may ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he transactions carried out during the Financial Years 2012-13 and 2013-14. During the Financial Year 2011-12, the assessee has sold 26,98,000 sq. ft of FSI, in terms of co-development agreement out of total available FSI of 65,42,064 sq. ft. This was the only transaction with regard to sale of FSI by the assessee. The assessee continues to the owner of the land in terms of co-development agreement as well as in land revenue record. After purchase of FSI, M/s. Goyal Safal Developer will co-develop the demarcated area by constructing residential apartments at its own cost and selling to final customers. M/s. Goyal Safal Developers will receive the agreed consideration from the customers. The assessee will not receive any further consideration from these customers however it will join as an owner to sale deed in terms of co-development agreement. After sale of FSI to Goyal Safal Developers, the company is left out with reduced FSI on remaining land. The company has to construct the villas, residential apartments, affordable housing for economically weaker section, commercial offices and shops as per the approved master plan by AUDA. The company is also required to lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4892750031 5.3.2 In response to show cause by the Assessing Officer as to why the claim of reduction of value of stock of land in excess of proportionate value of land admeasuring 82,200 sq. meters should not be disallowed, the assessee submitted that M/s. Goyal Safal Developers have been given light to co-develop by to infer that the land admeasuring 82,200 sq. mtrs., demarcated for the purpose of utilization of FSI by codeveloper had been sold to M/s. Goyal Safal Developers. It will be appreciated that in terms of matching concept all the related cost for earning the revenue has to be considered to determine the profit / loss from any transaction. Thus the assessee has properly claimed proportionate cost of FSI from sale consideration. 5.3.3 It was further submitted that the agreement with M/s. Goyal Safal Developer is for co-development and accordingly stamp duty applicable for co-development @ 1% has been paid and accepted by stamp-authorities whereas in case of sale of land stamp duty @ 4.9% is to be paid. The observation of the Assessing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... FSI in Sq. ft. Balance as on 01.04.2011 511707 6542064 Less: Area for cross over infrastructure, roads/school, hospital, public amenities and public garden as per township regulations. 120446 -- Area available for commercial exploitation 391261 6542064 Less: Area transferred to codeveloper 82200 2698000 Balance as on 31.03.2012 309061 3844064 Area of Villa sold during F.Y.201213 4271 28370 Balance as on 31.03.2013 304790 3815694 Area of Villa sold during F.Y.20 13- 14 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the table of the assessee's submission that, in the subsequent periods i.e. F.Y.2012-13 and 2013-14, the assessee company has stated to have sold area of Villa. * The assessee's submission dtd.27.03.2015 wherein it has reduced land admeasuring 120446 sq. mt in an attempt to reconcile the apparent inconsistencies in valuation of closing stock of land, is also contradictory 10 its earlier stand wherein the assessee company has claimed total cost of land admeasuring 211027.96 sq. mtr. Against sale of FSI wherein the land component transferred was only 82200 sq. mt. In this backdrop, the assessee's submission is again found contradictory and lopsided. By averaging the cost of FSI and land and by way of inaccurate-representation of fact, the assessee company has tried to defer the revenue. Neither the valuation of FSI nor of land has been found correct and consistent to the accounting method followed by it. This issue has discussed in detail under head Rebuttal of Assessee Company's Contention'. 5.7 The Assessing Officer also issued notice u/s. 133(6) to codeveloper viz. Goyal Safal Developer and the co-developer has also con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I would never alter the cost of the land in the books of the assessee company to reduce the cost of land without selling the same and such method is not in tune with the provisions of the Act. The books of the assessee company do not reflect the value of the FSI to show the value of land. The value of land has been arrived at by including cost of purchase of land plus cost of development incurred and not by the value of FSI. The claim of assessee company towards reduced value of land cost held as closing stock was not found justified. The AO accordingly re-valued the closing value of land in proportion to 16.06% of area of land parted alongwith transfer of co-development right. The value of closing stock of land was thus found to be undervalued by ₹ 1,07,17,79,584/- when reworked having regard to proportion to area transferred as against proportion of FSI transfer. The AO accordingly added the same of ₹ 1,07,17,79,584/- to the total income of the assessee on this score. 7. As noted above, the assessee similarly allocated the AUDA charges @ 41.24% in proportion of FSI claimed to have sold. Likewise, the FCCD interest sale was found to be allocated tow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Closing WP LAND 2501718656 Construction 1315029734 3816748390 Amount As per Balance sheet Schedule 12 3816748389 7.2 The aggregate amount of ₹ 53,09,89,339/- added to the Cost of Sale in excess of 16.06% was thus found not allowable. The AO accordingly added the same also to the total income of the assessee. 8. Aggrieved by the reduction of Cost of Sales of land and consequent increase in the closing value of land in proportion of geographical area shared resulting in additions of ₹ 1,07,17,79,584/- as well as reduction of allocation of expenses towards AUDA charges, FCD interest ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 666 Auda charges for Co-development sale 234580784 FCCD interest for co-development sale 294889883 Township Infra Expenses for co-development sale 247444843 2532775176 Closing WIP LAND 2501718656 Construction 1315029734 3816748390 Amount As per Balance sheet Schedule 12 3816748389 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld to Global FSt available with it. During the course of Assessment Proceedings, Appellant has also claimed that out of total land of 5,11,707 sq. mtr., land of 1,20,446 sq. mtr., is for areas for schools, hospital, public garden, etc. The AO has also asked Appellant to submit the valuation of closing stock for subsequent assessment year, wherein Appellant has shown cost of land at ₹ 250-17 crores which is similar to value shown in closing WIP as on 31st March, 2012 and said chart is already reproduced herein above. The Appellant has also stated that total available land as on 1sl April, 2013 is 3.09,061 sq. mtr. (5,11707 - 1,20446 being common area for development - 82,200 being land sold to co-developer). In subsequent Assessment Year Appellant has valued closing stock as well as amount to be charged in Profit Loss Account in ratio of area of land sold in proportion to balance area of land as on 1st April, 2013 and such ratio is different in comparison with current Assessment Year wherein expenditure is claimed in P L Account based on FSI sold. As Appellant has valued closing stock on different basis, AO has held that closing stock is required to be val ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under: Sr. No. Nature of expenses Total Expenses Expenses claimed by the assessee 41.24% Allowable expezznses 16.06% Excess expenses claimed by the assessee 1 AUDA charges for Co-development sale 568807450 234580784 91350476 143230308 2 FCCD interest for co-development sale 715043918 294889883 114836053 180053830 3 Township Infra Expenses for co-development sate 247444843 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sallowed. It was submitted that total township infra expenditure is Rupees sixty crores and Appellant has claimed expenditure of ₹ 24.74 crores in P L Account i.e. 41.24 % being area of FSI sold and even if working of AO is accepted, allocation works out to ₹ 9.63 crores I.e. 16.06% of ₹ 60,00,00,000. 2.7.4 On careful consideration of entire facts it is observed that Appellant has acquired the land for development of a township. It is observed that Appellant has acquired total land of 5,11,707 sq.mtr., and as per township policy, copy of which is furnished to AO vide letter dated 20th March, 2015, company was required to reserve areas for school, hospital, public garden, public road, etc., end as per said guidelines, Assessee has to keep land for such reservation at 1,20,446 sq. mtr. These details are already on record of AO and cannot be termed as afterthought as same is supported by township policy and Appellant has already surrendered 25,587 sq. mtr. of land to local authorities for public amenities. Considering these facts available land area for any development and commercial exploitation is 3,91,261 sq. mtr., and not 5,11,707 sq. mtr., cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0,000 sq. ft., and Assessee transfers. 60,000 sq. mtr., of land with FSI of 1,00,000, proportionate land cost allowable would be worked out, based upon area of land and not based upon area of FSI sold. The Appellant has argued that by entering into co-development agreement Appellant remained with balance FSI only hence cost of land to be debited in Profit Loss account is to be worked out based upon area of FSI sold cannot be accepted as after entering into co-development agreement, Appellant is remained with remaining area of land wherein it can utilize remaining FSI available with it which means that FSI goes with land. As per development agreement executed with co-developer it has been specifically stated that codeveloper has approached the developer with offer co-development of part of township land admeasuring 82,200 sq. mtr., (refer to clause - 6) which supports the contention of AO that cost to be allocated in profit loss account should be based upon area of land sold. Though, as per development agreement sale consideration is fixed upon area of FSI sold, but such land consideration in fact represents area of land sold as co-developer as per clause - 6 h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. It is observed that while arriving at opening stock of land, Appellant has adopted land value at ₹ 250,18 crores which is same value as on 31st March, 2012 arrived at after reducing proportionate FSI attributable to FSI sold to co developer out total FSI available with appellant. However, appellant has shown land area as on 01/4/2012 at 3,09,061 Sq Meter as against remaining FSI available with it for 3,09,061 Sq meter. Both Land in Sq meter and FSI are as under: Particulars Land in Sq. Mtr FSI in Sq. ft. Balance as on 01.04.2011 511707 6542064 Less: Area for cross over infrastructure, roads/school, hospital, public amenities and public garden as per township regulations. 120446 Area available for commercial exploitation 391261 6542064 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... q. mtr. Considering the facts discussed herein above, cost to be charged to Profit loss account would be based upon area of land sold as worked out below:- TRADING ACCOUNT OF LAND AS A PART OF INVENTORY Particulars Sq. mtrs. Value (Rs.) Cost worked out per Sq. Mt. Opening Stock of land(A) 511707 4257578322 8320 Less: Less: Area for cross over infrastructure, roads/school, hospital, public amenities and public garden as per township regulations. 120446 0 0 Area available for commercial exploitation 391261 4257578322 10881 Co-development land allocat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant has obtained additional FSI by making payment to AUDA and exact break up of such expenditure has not been provided in appellate proceedings or assessment proceedings. As appellant has obtained additional FSI based upon payment made by it, expenditure incurred on obtaining global FSI is linked with FS! obtained by appellant and such payment has no link with land area hence AO is directed to allocate such expenditure in ratio of FS! sold during the year in proportion of total FSI available with it and recompute closing WIP in case of appellant. Thus, all the related grounds of appeal regarding allocation of land other cost to Profit loss account and valuation of closing stock is partly allowed. 8.2 The CIT(A) thus while upholding the additions made by the AO in principle reduced the quantum of addition from 1,07,27,79,584/- to ₹ 86,11,74,085/- on the ground that an area of 120446 sq. mtrs. of land requires to be excluded for the computation of per sq.mtrs. of land cost since such area is attributable to cross over infrastructure, roads, schools, hospitals, public garden and other public amenities as per Township planning scheme conc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - - Opening Stock (Net) 391261 6542064 4257578322 568807450 642835052 45647787 5514868611 Add: Expenditure incurred during the Year 20591643 323237107 490826205 834654955 Less: Transferred to Co Developer 82200 2698000 1755859666 234580784 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Opening Stock (Net) 511707 6542064 4257578322 568807450 642835052 45647787 5514868611 Add: Expenditure incurred during the Year 20591643 323237107 490826205 834654955 Less: Transferred to Co Developer 82200 2698000 683932286 91372548 114863799 103716088 993884720 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee or codeveloper could not have used the whole of the land area and was under statutory obligation to keep aside a portion of the land towards various infrastructure facilities and therefore, the CIT(A) has rightly taken cognizance of such facts, however, in limited manner. The learned senior counsel emphasized that it is the permissible construction gathered in the name of FSI available to the township which will determine the cost of land and in absence of FSI, the land is effectively worthless. 10.3 The learned AR next contended that the AO committed serious error in appreciating the contents of the development agreement. It was strenuously pointed out that the assessee has only sold 26,98,000 sq.ft. of FSI in terms of co-development agreement out of total available FSI of 65,42,064 sq.ft. without any sale of land per se. The assessee continues to be owner of land in terms of co-development agreement as well as in land revenue record. It was agreed that after purchase of FSI, the co-developer M/s. Goyal Safal Developers will co-develop the earmarked area by constructing residential apartments at its own costs and selling to final customers. The co-developer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mp duty of 4.9% payable on sale of land. It was thus argued that the cost of sale of land cannot be valued in proportion to area but will have to be computed in proportion to the FSI. It was thereafter canvassed that the total consideration of ₹ 250 Crore received, if calculated on the basis of area of land of 82,200 sq.mtr., would result in value of consideration of land at ₹ 3,04,136/- per sq. mtr. as against the circle rate/jantri rate of land (value adopted by stamp duty) which is ₹ 2750/- per sq. mtr. only. This itself proves that the sale consideration has been received on the basis of FSI only. The learned senior counsel also pointed out that if the sale value of ₹ 3,04,136/- per sq.mtr. of land is applied to the entire area of township of 5,11,707 sq.mtr., the total value of land of township would come to a whopping figure of ₹ 1556.29 Crores which is prima facie unrealistic to the hilt. Coupled with this, if the FSI is to be allocated on the basis of geographical area only, a co-developer will be entitled to develop only 10,50,753 sq. ft. of FSI on area of 82,200 sq.mtr. of land earmarked whereas assessee has permitted the utilization of 26980 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5514868611 ADD: Construction expenses during the year 834654955 (as per Schedule 18) Less: Cost of Sales Land (₹ 425.75 Cr x 41.24%) 1755859666 82200 (16.06%) 2698000 (41.24%) Auda charges for Co development sale 234580784 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... co-developer utilizing maximum FSI of 26,98,000 sq.ft. as sanctioned by the local authority. It is thus the case of the assessee that while only 16.06% of land area has been demarcated for the purpose of development by co-developer, the FSI to the tune of 41.24% of the total FSI has been utilized by codeveloper for construction in the township area. The assessee has received an agreed consideration of ₹ 250 Crores from the codeveloper in lieu of partial surrender of its development rights in favour of the co-developer. It is also the case of the assessee that apart from 16.06% of geographical land area demarcated for development and construction by the co-developer, the assessee was also under obligation to create infrastructure facilities in the form of roads, hospitals, schools, garden etc. as per the sanctioned master plan which would consume another land area of approx.120446 sq.mtrs. from the gross township area. Thus while recognizing the sale consideration received by the developer assessee from the codeveloper, the assessee has apportioned the Cost of Sales as attributable to revenue receipt in proportion to FSI sold i.e. 41.24% of the total value of land of the to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cost of the sale of land transferred to codeveloper has been overstated to this extent and consequently closing value of remaining land in possession of the assessee has been understated to the same extent. The business income deduced by the assessee on sale of co-development rights is thus alleged to be understated by ₹ 107.17 Crores. 12.5 Applying the same analogy, the AO has reduced the allocation of AUDA charges for co-development, FCCD interest, township infra expenses from 41.24% to 16.06% alleging excess expenses claimed by the assessee to the tune of ₹ 53,09,89,339/- for determination of aggregate Cost of Sales . The AO thus has increased the assessed income by ₹ 1,07,17,79,584/- on account of alleged overstatement of value of Cost of Sales of land assigned by the assessee and also made another disallowance on account of excess claim of incidental expenses clubbed to the Cost of Sales amounting to ₹ 53,09,89,339/- disputing the apportionment made in terms of FSI available rather than geographical area. 13. The CIT(A) in the first appeal has granted partial relief to the assessee and reduced the addition towards un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he total township area in proportion to FSI sold. It is not in dispute that FSI of 65,42,075 sq.ft. was stated to be available at the disposal of the assessee for the purposes of construction and development on the total township area of 511707 sq.mtr. Out of the aforesaid FSI 65,42,075 sq.ft., the assessee has sold FSI of 26,98,000 sq. ft. (41.24% of global FSI) to the co-development by way of co-development agreement which fetched the revenue of ₹ 250 crores. Thus, when the Cost of Sales computed for deduction in terms of FSI in the same manner as the sales revenue fetched in terms of FSI, we do not see any error in the cost assigned as per FSI vis- -vis FSI sold. 15. Significantly, as per clause 10(b) of the co-development agreement, it was the contractual obligation of the developer assessee to enable the co-developer to utilize FSI of 26,98,000 sq.ft. and in the event of any regulatory hurdle in this regard resulting in lesser utilizing of FSI by the co-developer, the developer assessee was required to refund the sale consideration to the extent of lesser utilization. This clearly underlines the fact that the assessee has essentially sold FSI embedded i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the claim of the assessee that the Cost of Sales requires to be determined on the basis of FSI allocated vis- -vis global FSI regardless of lesser area allocated for putting up construction. 18. In the light of forgoing discussion, we have no hesitation to set aside the order of the CIT(A) and reverse the action of the AO. We find considerable merit in the plea raised by the assessee for computation of Cost of Sales of land and incidental costs towards AUDA charges etc. on the parameters of FSI sold as computed by the assessee. The additions made by the AO towards alleged suppression of profit arising from sale of land and excess claim of incidental expenses attributable to such sale are therefore reversed. 19. Ground No.1 to 5 of the assessee s appeal concerning the aforesaid grievances are therefore allowed. 20. As a corollary and in the converse, the Revenue s Ground Nos. 1 to 8 assailing the action of the CIT(A) in granting partial relief is also found to be without merit and accordingly dismissed. 21. The second issue raised by way of Ground No.6 of the assessee s appeal and Ground No.9 of the Revenue s appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore, the presumption would naturally arise in favour of the assessee for deemed utilization of interest free funds for investments yielding tax free income in preference to the borrowed funds as laid down in plethora of judicial precedents. Therefore, we do not see any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A). The grievance of the Revenue on this score thus cannot be entertained. 26. Ground No.9 of the Revenue s appeal is dismissed. 27. Turning to the cross grievance of the assessee towards sustenance of disallowance of administrative expenditure computed under Rule 8D(2)(iii) r.w. Section 14A of the Act, we observe that the revenue authorities have rightly invoked formula under Rule 8D(2)(iii) for disallowance of management and general expenses deemed to be attributable to earn the tax free income. However, the disallowance is required to be computed having regard to the investments which has actually yielded exempt income instead of gross investments in consonance with the decision of the special bench in ACIT vs. Vireet Investments Ltd. 165 ITD 27 (Delhi-Trib.) (SB) as relied upon on behalf of the assessee. The issue is therefore remitted back to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
