9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 2006X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut the findings so recorded by Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, there are no reasons for us to interfere into or deviate from the findings so recorded by the Ld.CIT(A). - Decided against revenue. - I.T.A. No. 377/Mum/2016 - - - Dated:- 23-8-2018 - Hon ble Sh. G. S. Pannu, AM And Hon ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, JM Appellant by : Shri M. C. Omi Ningshen, DR Respondentby : ShriVijay Mehta, AR ORDER Sandeep Gosain, The present Appeal filed by the revenueis against the order of Ld. CIT (Appeal) 2, Mumbai dated 30.10.15 for AY 2012-13 on the grounds mentioned herein below:- 1. on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee is engaged in the business of land development and construction and has constructed and sold commercial premises during the year under consideration. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was correct in not appreciating the fact that the assessee shows in the Balance Sheet, the construction expenditure incurred as the Capital Work in Progress. 3. on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore us, the revenue has preferred the present appeal by raising the above grounds. Ground No. 1 to 6 3. These grounds raised by the revenuerelates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A)in directing the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of ₹ 2,47,56,227/- on account of income from sale of LodhaSupremus Building, therefore we thought it fit to dispose of the same by this common order. 4. We have heard counsels for both the parties at length and we have also perused the material placed on record, judgment cited by both the parties as well as the orders passed by revenue authorities. Before we decide the merits of the case, it is necessary to evaluate the orders passed by Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) has dealt with the above grounds raised by the revenue in para no. 3.1 to 3.11.4ofitsorder. The operative portion of the order of Ld. CIT(A) is contained in para no. 3.11.1 to 3.11.4 of its order and the same is reproduced below:- Decision 3.11.1. I have gone through the issue, the appellant s submission and paper book filed. The AR s emphasized submission was that the income taxed by the AO in the appellant s hand is already assessed and taxed in the hand o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Nature of project ShreeniwasCotton Mills Pvt. Ltd Supermus Commercial World crest High end residential World crest High end residential (vii) At paragraph 13.1 on page 23 and 24 of the ITSC's order, they have stated the facts of project wise car parking offered by the various Applicant. In the said list, at serial number 16 the name of SNCML is mentioned wherein it has disclosed the car parking received from the project World crest and World One. The facts categorically stated by the ITSC is that the applicants is not in receipts of car parking money in case of commercial projects is recorded at paragraph 13.3 and 13.1 of ITSC's order. Since, LodhaSupremus is a commercial project, no car parking has been offered on this project. (viii) While dealing with the issue of On money in paragraph 14 of the ITSC's order, the Hon'ble ITSC, at sub-para 14 3, has stated the facts explained by the applicants that it has not charged any on money in respect of the commercial projects However, an amount of₹ 1 Crore has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ew of the above facts in the present case, it is clear that the assessment year 2012-13 in the case of SNCML was covered in the proceeding before the ITSC. The ITSC has already taxed the revenue from the project LodhaSupremus in the hand of SNCML as evident from the discussion in above paragraph. Thus, I am of the considered view that taxing the same income again in the hand of the Appellant will result into double taxation of the same income which is not permissible in view of the settled principle. I also find force in the submission of the AR that the Appellant was used as a SPV by SNCML for construction of LodhaSupremus which is more like a co-operative society carrying out the work for and on behalf of its members out of the cost met by them. Therefore, the transactions entered into between the SNCML and Appellant are not sham transaction as alleged by the AO. Under such circumstances no profit could arise in the hand of SPV. Thus, I am of the view that the addition of profit made in the hand of the Appellant is unjustified; therefore, the addition made by the AO is deleted. These grounds of appeal are allowed. It was observed from the records that the Appellant Compan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
