9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 626X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order of the Ld.AO because these expenses are incurred for the purpose of guarding the property and not for the purpose of the improvement of the property and there is no scope for any deduction U/s. 48 of the Act for the same as held by the ld. Revenue Authorities - disallowance of expenditure made by the Ld. AO which was further sustained by the Ld. CIT (A) towards cost of improvement of the property while computing the LTCG of the assessee is hereby confirmed. Disallowance towards expenditure incurred for transfer of capital asset - HELD THAT:- We do not find it necessary to interfere with the order of the ld. Revenue Authorities, because the assessee has not provided any cogent evidence to establish that she had paid the amount for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sions of the Act. Even in the case of the assessee the provisions of section 234A, B and C of the Act are consequential in nature and therefore we do not find it necessary to interfere with the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities on this issue. - ITA No.85/Hyd/2016 - - - Dated:- 13-7-2021 - Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, Judicial Member And Shri A. Mohan Alankamony, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Sri S. Ramana Rao For the Revenue : Sri Rohit Mujumdar, DR ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM.: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT (A)-10, Hyderabad in appeal No. 0003/CIT(A)-10/2014-15, dated 05-10-2015 passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 250(6) of the Act for the AY: 2011-12. 2. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00/- and offered LTCG on the transaction for ₹ 2,82,80,323/-. While computing the LTCG, the assessee had claimed the following expenditure as cost of improvement of the property. (i) ₹ 3,00,000 towards construction of watchmen quarters in the year 2000-2001 (ii) ₹ 9 lakh towards stone cutting charges in the land. (iii) ₹ 37,062/- towards power charges. (iv) ₹ 9,06,000/- towards security charges. (v) ₹ 55,594/- towards Telephone Charges. (vi) ₹ 1,54,212/- towards Travelling expenses. 6. The Ld. AO disallowed the amount of ₹ 3 lakhs being the expenditure incurred towards construction of watchman quarters because the sale deed did not mention about the existence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d during the FY 2001-02 and 2002-03. However, the assessee could not produce any evidence for the payment of ₹ 9 lakhs other than a notarized affidavit from G. Rajesh confirming the receipt of ₹ 9 lakhs and some photographs of the land. For lack of evidence the Ld. AO had disallowed the expenditure for ₹ 9 lakhs towards cost of improvement on stone cutting expenditure incurred by the assessee which was further confirmed by the Ld. CIT (A). On perusing the facts of the case, we do not find it necessary to interfere with the order of the ld. Revenue Authorities because even before us the assessee has not produced any cogent evidence for the payment made for ₹ 9 lakhs. Therefore, this addition also stands confirmed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irmed. 10. Ground No.2: Disallowance of ₹ 11,61,843/- towards expenditure incurred for transfer of capital asset: 11. The assessee had claimed an amount of ₹ 8 lakhs as brokerage charges for the sale of the property being the payment made to Sri Uttam Kumar a.k.a T. Uttam Rao and ₹ 5 lakhs towards travelling and boarding expense of Sri Ravi Kiran Lakkaraju in connection with the sale of the property. With respect to the expenditure incurred for ₹ 8 Lakhs the assessee could not furnish any evidence other than a kaccha receipt from Uttam Rao along with the xerox copy of his PAN card. Therefore, the Ld. AO disallowed the expenditure incurred towards brokerage which was further confirmed by the Ld. CIT (A). As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see nor her counsel has clarified as to how the payments were made with evidence. In this situation the claim of the assessee that the payment were made to certain individuals by obtaining a receipt or affidavit from them cannot be relied upon. 13. Ground No.3: Additional Ground : Levy of Interest U/s. 234A, B and C of the Act: 14. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted before us that the assessee is a NRI therefore the entire tax payable by the assessee is deductible at source by the purchase of the property according to section 209 sic 195 of the Act. The Ld. AR further argued that for the above stated reason the assessee is discharged from the liability for payment of advance tax and hence interest is not chargeable U/s. 234A, B a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
