9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 431X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k in progress at the time of purchase of land which was reimbursed - assessee was acquiring the land from the various farmers by paying cash to them and debiting it to the capital work in progress account. This sum was not claimed as an expenditure‟ in the profit and loss account. Therefore, there was no question of claiming deduction of this sum. The land was acquired on behalf of the other company who paid the assessee through account payee cheque. Such sum was credited in the capital work in progress account. The whole transaction of purchase of land as well as transfer to the sister concern was not routed through profit and loss account but were shown in the balance sheet. On these facts, coordinate bench held that provision of s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ii) that, the CIT(A) himself holding that such material did not belong to the appellant. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) erred in not accepting the appellant's contention that Additional Payments having not been claimed as deduction by appellant, no disallowance could have been made in the hands of the appellant. 3.1 That without prejudice the CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance of Additional Payments made to the recipients who were not the owners of land and to the payment made in cash. 3.2 That without prejudice the CIT(A) erred in not himself quantifying the addition to be made. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) erred in upho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n account of additional payments made of ₹ 386248/- for purchase of land. 6. The assessee aggrieved with the order of the ld AO preferred appeal before the ld CIT(A), who confirmed the addition u/s 40A(3) of the Act vide para no. 4.7 and addition on account of enhanced payment was partly allowed. Therefore, the assessee being aggrieved with the above order has preferred this appeal before us. 7. The ld Authorised Representative submitted that disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Act has been considered and decided in favour of the assessee by 31 decisions of the coordinate bench and mainly Westland Developers Pvt. Ltd in ITA No. 1752/Del/2013. With respect to the additional payments the issue has been covered by the 27 decisions of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n was not routed through profit and loss account but were shown in the balance sheet. On these facts, coordinate bench held that provision of section 40A(3) of the Act do not apply. Subsequently, series of decisions were rendered by the coordinate benches following the above decision. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the coordinate bench, we reverse the order of the ld CIT(A) and direct the ld Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance of ₹ 859495/- made u/s 40A(3) of the Act. Accordingly, ground No. 4 of the appeal is allowed. 10. Ground No. 3 of the appeal is with respect to the disallowance/ addition on account of additional payments for purchase of land. 11. The assessee submits that as assessee has not ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
