9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 355X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vailable categorically provides that CWPPL shall reimburse all costs and expenses incurred by the assessee with respect to the acquisition of the said land and accordingly in the books of account which have otherwise been accepted by the Revenue, the said amount received from CWPPL was shown as reimbursement. Thus when the assessee has not debited the amount of cost of land in the profit loss account nor claimed any deduction in respect of cost of land by way of computation, provisions contained u/s 40A(3) are not attracted, so AO/CIT(A) have erred in making / confirming the disallowance - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.1739/Del./2013 - - - Dated:- 10-11-2020 - Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Accountant Member And Shri Kuldip Singh, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng was given, even according to his own finding by the CIT(A), did not belong to the appellant and, ii. that no enquiries were made from any of the alleged recipients of the interest and none was confronted with relevant document(s}. 3.1 That the finding of the CIT(A} is based on mere surmises and conjectures without proof and corroboration by independent evidence. 3.2 That without prejudice the CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of interest for the period for which PDC's were extended. 3.3 That without prejudice the CIT(A) erred in not quantifying the addition and instead giving ambiguous directions to compute the interest after six months from the date of sale. 4. That on the facts and circumstan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act ) after making additions to the tune of ₹ 29,28,201, ₹ 51,21,875/- and ₹ 40,000/- on account of interest on PDC, disallowance u/s 37(1) and disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Act respectively. 3. Assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT (A) by way of filing the appeal who has partly allowed the appeal by giving relief of ₹ 29,28,201/- ₹ 51,21,875/- on account of interest on PDC and disallowance u/s 37(1) of the Act on account of additional payment, however confirmed the disallowance of ₹ 40,000/- made u/s 40A(3) of the Act by the AO. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the ld. CIT (A), both the Revenue as well as assessee filed the cross appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ement; that identical issue has been decided in favour of the assessee in its group company case cited as M/s. Westland Developers Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.1752/Del/2013 order dated 22.08.2014 , available at pages 42 to 76 of the paper book. 7. However, on the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue relied upon the orders passed by the AO as well as ld. CIT (A) and sought dismissal of the appeal. 8. Undisputedly, assessee has purchased the land and made part of the payment of ₹ 40,000/- in cash and vide Collaboration Agreement, development rights and land in question were assigned in favour of CWPPL. It is also not in dispute that books of account of the assessee company have been accepted by the lower Revenue authorities. It is also not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... :- 10.10. We have also taken ourselves through the judgement of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Industrial Engineering Projects Pvt. Ltd. (cited supra) which has been relied upon before us for the proposition that reimbursement of expenses cannot be treated to be a Revenue receipt. How the judgement of the Apex Court in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals Fertilizers is applicable to the facts of the present case has not been set out in the order of the authorities nor has the Ld. DR been able to address the applicability of the said judgement to the issue at hand. We have taken ourselves through the said judgement and seen that it proceeds on entirety different facts and circumstances and has no applicability to the fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
