9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 941X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ken by the assessee read as under :- "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, & in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in upholding a disallowance of brokerage expense amounting to Rs. 1,58,22,131/- under section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act'). The Appellant prays that the Ld. AO be directed to delete the said disallowance of Rs. 1,58,22,131. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, & in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in confirming the denial of deduction under section 80-IAB of the Act on car parking income of Rs. 38,53,200, income from health club of Rs. 33,93,477, income from food court of Rs. 48,56,499 and interest income of Rs. 47,63,700 totalling to Rs. 1,68,66876. The Appellant prays that the Ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Against the above order, assessee has filed appeal before us. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. 6. Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that in assessee's group concern, on similar facts and circumstances, ITAT had decided the issue in favour of the assessee. 7. Per contra, ld. DR for the Revenue did not dispute this proposition. 8. We note that ITAT in bunch of appeals being ITA No.7839/Del/2018 & ors. in the case of M/s. Candor Gurgaon Two Developers and Projects Pvt. Ltd. vide order dated 14.06.2023 has decided the similar issue as under:- "8. As with regard to the issue no.5 being ground of brokerage in ITA No.3879/Del/2018, it can be observe that the invoices produced on behalf of the appellant at page no.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nment of India dated 27th October 2006, certain operations were listed to be used by the Board of Approval while approving authorised operations in the SEZ. This list included parking, club house, shopping arcade, convention centre, etc. Furthermore, ld. Counsel of the assessee referred to the ITAT decision in assessee's group cases (supra) where similar disallowances have been decided in favour of the assessee. 13. Per contra, ld. DR for the Revenue could not dispute the aforesaid proposition. 14. Upon careful consideration, we find that these activities, which were denied by the authorities u/s 80-IAB, are linked to main activities which are duly covered by the above Notification in this regard. Furthermore, this ITAT in bunch of appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
