9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 655X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as given a detailed finding in respect of each unit which was doubted by the Assessing Officer. In fact, the expenditure incurred was wholly and exclusively for the business purposes, which was not refuted by the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceeding as well. Therefore, the Ground No. 1(ii) is dismissed Addition on account of not disclosing maintenance income - HELD THAT:- The CIT(A) has given a detailed reasons and despite not admitting additional evidences has taken cognizance that when the mistake was detected by the assessee relating to income in respect of maintenance the same was offered to tax in A.Y. 2011-12 by showing previous year item. Therefore, Ground No. 1(iii) of the revenue is dismissed. - I.T.A NO. 6141/Del/2015 - - - Dated:- 7-11-2019 - Shri N. K. Billaiya, Accountant Member And Ms Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Shri Surendra Pal, Sr. D.R For the Respondent : Shri Rajesh Arora, C.A ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order dated 20/07/2015 passed by CIT(A)-I, New Delhi for Asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 010-11 by the appellant. The Assessing Officer also disallowed ₹ 2,56,169/- u/s 14A of the I.T. Act. 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. 5. The Ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 22,50,000/- and ₹ 16,30,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of interest paid and disallowance rent expenses. The Ld. DR submitted that these payments are doubtful and should be remanded back to the Assessing Officer as no proper evidences were submitted before the Assessing Officer. 6. The Ld. AR relied upon the order of the CIT(A). 7. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. The CIT(A) while deleting Ground No.1(i) has given a categorical finding that the payments made to the parties were verifiable as the payments were received by way of cheques and same was utilized by the assessee for its business purpose for completing the projects. The CIT(A) held as under: I have considered the submission of the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anteed investment return was paid to the investor from 1st of May, 2008 till it was completed or leased out to some other party. The appellant has also filed copy of the Form No. 16A at page No. 61 of the paper book, wherein the appellant has deducted TDS on this payment u/s 194A of the I.T. Act. The TDS so deducted has been deposited to the Government account. The appellant claims that this guaranteed return investment has been paid to attract the much needed funds from the customers. If this scheme was not opted by the appellant, then appellant would have borrowed funds from the market and would have paid the interest. Therefore, the expenditure paid in the form of fixed return investment plan is for the purposes of business and same is allowable as business expenditure. Similarly, the appellant has paid assured rental to Sh. Arun Khanna and Kailash Khanna vide MOU dated 22.09.2008 filed at page No. 68-75 of the paper book. The appellant has received amount for booking in 'Vipul Tech Square' from Sh. Kailash Khanna of ₹ 13,32,500/- on 22.09.2008, ₹ 19,45,000/- on 23.09.2008 and ₹ 21,57,500/- on 24.09.2008 against the booking of space. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... completing the project. The payments of assured return in the form of interest to Dinesh Nandini Ram Krishna Dalmia Foundation and assured rental to Sh. Arun Khanna and Kailash Khanna have been made after deducting TDS, therefore, there is no dispute about incurring of expenditure. Since, the funds received from these parties were on the basis of valid MOUs against booking of space and on the basis of fixed return plans offered by the appellant, hence the expenditure incurred was in furtherance of commercial expediency and meeting the fund requirement of the business. In view of the facts discussed above, the claim of the interest payment of ₹ 22,50,500/- made to M/s Dinesh Nandini Ram Krishna Dalmia Foundation and assured rent paid to Sh. Kailash Khanna and Arun Khanna of ₹ 16,30,500/- are allowable expenditure. Accordingly, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of ₹ 22,50,500/- and ₹ 16,30,500/- is deleted. As a result, ground of appeal No. 1 and 2 are allowed. It is pertinent to note that the payment made to the parties was verified by the CIT(A) and the funds received from these parties were received by way of cheques and sam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inal buyers and paid compensation as under: S.No. Name of the Party Amount (Rs.) 1. Puneet Mago Madhu Mago 23,07,600/- 2. Anil Chauhan 20,00,000/- 3. Ashok Kumar Mehta Banu Mehta 29,52,000/- 4. Narinder Kumar Chopra 17,84,800/- 5 Sadharth Singh 3,10,400/- 6. Kaushal Kumar Gupta Swati Gupta 15,62,400/- Total (Rs.) 1,09,17,200/- The appellant has filed co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . ft., the same area was rebooked @ ₹ 3150/- per sq. ft. in the name of Ajay Raj Singh. Copy of the agreement entered with Ajay Raj Singh is filed at page 170-173 of the paper book. It is claimed by the appellant that appellant still gained ₹ 550 per sq. ft. on this particular unit which has been credited in the Profit Loss A/c. The entire receipts of the subsequent sale of this unit has been taken to the Profit Loss A/c. The additional amount paid as compensation was ₹ 3,10,400/- to Sh. Sidharth Singh has been claimed as compensation paid in the Profit Loss A/c. It is claimed by the appellant that as such there was no loss to the revenue in rebooking of this unit. 3. Unit No. 417: This unit was allotted to Mr. and Mrs. Kaushal Kumar Gupta having area as per drawing, 868 sq. ft.(P.B. Pg. 147-151). However, due to change in the floor plan, this particular unit was reduced to the size 858 sq. ft. only. The rate of booking was accordingly enhanced to 3000 per sq. ft. which the allottee did not opt. Hence, the appellant company took the said flat from the above party @ ₹ 4800 per sq. ft. as per the agreement entered into in January 2010 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ement for termination of the agreement was signed in the month of December, 2009 which is filed at page No. 122-124 of the paper book. As per this agreement, the unit was bought back by the appellant company from Sh. Ashok K. Mehta @ ₹ 4800/- per sq. ft. The entire consideration was paid including the money received from Sh. Ashok K. Mehta. The differential amount of ₹ 29,52,000/- was debited to compensation account. 5. Unit No. 432: As per the original plan, this unit was allotted to Mr. Narinder Kumar Chopra having area of 776 sq. ft. However, at the time of final delivery, as per the new layout, the size got reduced to 741 sq. ft. The party did not agree to accept the unit of reduced size. Therefore, to avoid the unnecessary litigations which was not in the interest of either of the parties, the appellant entered into a commercial understanding with Sh. Narinder Kumar Chopra which is filed at page 125-128 of the paper book. As per this understanding, this unit was bought back from Sh. Narinder Kumar Chopra @ ₹ 4800/- per sq. ft. Accordingly the difference amount of ₹ 17,84,800/- was paid to the above party and same wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficer in the assessment order. It is seen that during the year the appellant had received maintenance income of ₹ 50,27,287/- and TDS of ₹ 99,998/- was deducted on the same. The appellant had claimed TDS of ₹ 99,998/- in the A.Y. 2010-11 but at the same time inadvertently the income related to this TDS was not declared in the Profit Loss A/c in the A.Y. 2010-11. It is claimed by the appellant that it has neither shown this maintenance income nor claimed the expenses connected to this income which were of ₹ 49,31,321/- in the A.Y. 2010-11. It is claimed by the appellant that while merging the Trial Balance in which maintenance income and maintenance expensed were recorded, the same were left out to be taken in the Profit Loss A/(L/The appellant offered this income in A.Y. 2011-12 for which the appellant has filed copy of computation of income at page no. 101-104. At page 104, which is Profit Loss A/c for A.Y. 2011-12, the appellant has shown under the head income items related to previous year and offered ₹ 1,00,966/- in P L A/c. It is seen that the mistake was bona fide as this point was pointed out by the AO during the course of the assessmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
