9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 97X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... autamchand S. Chaudhary (HUF). (3). The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 66,30,000/- made on account of expenditure claimed in Trading Account by way of Forfeiture of advance paid to Ramesh M. Patel. (4). The ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 66,30,000/- in view of non-deduction of TDS u/s. 194IA despite the fact that advance was given as per Banakhat dated 22.06.2013 as per assessee's own admission." 2.1 The Assessee in its Cross Objection has raised the following grounds :- ITEM NO. I: Additions/Disallowances on Account of Bogus Expenses Claimed in the Trading Account-Compensation amount paid to Kunal S Shah HUF - Rs. 1,53,59,000/ 1.1 The learned A.O. has erred in law and on facts in not accepting the view taken by the leamed CIT(A). The learned A.O. has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the learned. CIT(A) has after considering the facts, documents submitted during the course of appellate proceedings and relying on various case laws has rightly observed that considering price appreciation of the property in subject for which compensation has been paid by the appellant and as the appellant h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the above, the appellant humbly submits that the contention of the learned A.O. is bad in law and hence the same should be deleted. TEM NO. III: Additions/Disallowances on Account of Bogus Expenses Claimed in the Trading Account - Forfeiture of Advance paid to Ramesh M. Patel - Rs. 66,30,000/- 3.1 The learned A.O. has erred in law and on facts in not accepting the view taken by the learned CIT(A). The learned A.O. has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the learned CIT(A) has after considering the facts, documents submitted during the course of appellate proceedings and relying on various case laws has observed that appellant was successful in acquisition of different survey numbers located at Mankol village of Sanand Taluka through Mr. Rameshbhai Patel and appellant is dealing with him since 2010 and having good amount of trust. Appellant has also entered in to Banakhat for purchase of land at survey no.98, 99 & 83, out of which land at survey no.98 & 99 were successfully acquired by the appellant company and land at survey no.83 could not be acquired because of it had no seamless access due to failure of acquiring land at survey No.82P. This proves that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee was shown as confirming party no.1 alongwith other four confirming parties who were the relatives of the seller Dilipbhai Mulshankar Mehta. As per the said sale deed dated 30.01.2015, the assessee received an amount of Rs. 3,96,00,000/- as confirming party on sale of the land. 3.3 In the second sale deed dated 21.10.2014, value of sale was shown at Rs. 2,10,51,000/- and the seller was Shabbirali Nurmad Vaghmer who sold the property to Shri Gajendrakumar V. Doshi and three others. In the said sale deed, the assessee was shown at Sl. No.3 as confirming party who has received amount of Rs. 1,92,00,000/-. Thus, as per the observation of the Assessing Officer, during the year under consideration, the assessee received total amount of Rs. 5,88,00,000/- as a middle man i.e. confirming party on sale of the properties. However, in the Profit & Loss account the assessee has shown entire sale proceeds of Rs. 10,05,51,001/- as assessee's revenue from operation. After taking cognisance of the assessee's reply, the Assessing Officer has proposed to make disallowance of Rs. 4,69,89,000/-. 3.4 The Assessing Officer further observed that the assessee received Rs. 11,41,000/- from Shri Kunal S. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition of Rs. 2,50,00,000/- made on account of expenditure claimed in Trading Account by way of forfeiture of advance paid to Shri Gautamchand Sohanlal Chaudhary HUF, the CIT(A) ignored the fact that the assessee company never put forward any evidence with regard to forfeiture of Rs. 2,50,00,000/- due to the non-availability of bauxite mineral on the alleged agricultural land in question. The agreement between Credo Real Estate Private Limited and M/s. Lucent Solar Private Limited dated 21.06.2013 was related to the land aggregation agreement between those parties and has nothing to do with the assessee Shri Gautamchand Sohanlal Chaudhary HUF. Thus, the Ld. DR relied upon the Assessment Order. 5.2 As regards ground no.3, the Ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) was not right in deleting the addition of Rs. 66,33,000/- made on account of expenditure claimed in Trading Account by way forfeiture of advance paid to Shri Ramesh M. Patel. The remand report categorically mentions that the agreement comes into effect on 22.06.2013 and the amount of Rs. 1,01,15,000/- has already been paid by the assessee as on 04.04.2013. Thus, the agreement is only executed to give this transaction a nature of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... capital gain and the entire transaction per se cannot be doubted merely on the conclusion that there was cancellation subsequent to the payment of compensation. This cannot be the criteria for making transaction non-genuine. Hence, ground no.1 of Revenue's appeal is dismissed. 7.1 As regards ground no.2, the CIT(A) has observed that the assessee company entered into an agreement with Shri Gautamchand Sohanlal Chaudhary HUF on 03.01.2014 to purchase an agricultural land. After having paid the last instalment of Rs. 65,00,000/- and the assessee has made advance payment of Rs. 2,50,00,000/-. The assessee contended that the surveying firm has genuine expenditure and found that the amount was much below the earlier expectation of Rs. 20,00,00,000/- i.e. it had no reserve beyond Rs. 10,00,00,000/-. The assessee has submitted the land aggregation agreement between the assessee company and M/s. Lucent Solar Private Limited wherein the purpose of agreement was encompassing provision of services, funding, consultancy and other related business activities for bauxite-based land acquisition and the assessee company confirms to invest upto Rs. 2,50,00,000/- towards advance payment for bauxite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
