9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 1040X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pay 60% of the revenue earned from the transfer/sale of the integrated hotel project to MGF. Tribunal s view that the contention of revenue that the collaboration agreement represented a sham transaction was not established and consideration for sharing the revenue was provided by MGF in the form of funds, technical support/assistance for execution of the project and the benefit of its brand value that had been acquired perhaps over the year - HELD THAT:- Tribunal as concluded that the obligation cast on the respondent/assessee to share the revenue from the project represented commercial expediency. In a nutshell, the Tribunal applied the well-established principle that the AO could not have put itself in the armchair of the businessma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome Tax (Appeals) [in short, CIT(A) ] via the order dated 14.08.2014, deleted the addition made by the AO. The order of the CIT(A) has been confirmed by the Tribunal. 5. The root cause for the addition made by the AO is the collaboration agreement dated 06.09.2004 [in short, collaboration agreement ], which has been executed between the respondent/assessee and an entity named, MGF Development Ltd. [hereafter referred to as MGF ]. 5.1 The collaboration agreement concerned an integrated hotel project in Jaipur. The project involved the construction of a mall and a hotel. The hotel went by the name, Hotel Fortune Select Metropolitan. 6. The record shows that the integrated hotel project was transferred/sold to an entity named M/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... crores, which was the gross amount that had been remitted by the respondent/assessee to MGF, was accepted by the AO of MGF in an assessment order dated 25.05.2012 framed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, the Act ]. 10. In sum, it was the Tribunal s view that the contention of the appellant/revenue that the collaboration agreement represented a sham transaction was not established. As noted above, the consideration for sharing the revenue was provided by MGF in the form of funds, technical support/assistance for execution of the project and the benefit of its brand value that had been acquired perhaps over the year. 10.1 The Tribunal thus concluded that the obligation cast on the respondent/assessee to sha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
