Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (8) TMI 1116 - AT - Income TaxEntitlement to deduction u/s 54 - second residential unit purchased by assessee - Held that:- We find that this issue no more res integra in view of various decisions referred by the ITAT in the case of Meher R. Surti (2015 (4) TMI 52 - ITAT MUMBAI ). Further, we find that amendment has been brought in section 54 to limit the exemption u/s 54 to one residential unit, which is applicable from A.Y. 2015-16. therefore, for the year under consideration the assessee was entitled for exemption u/s 54 in respect of more than one flat. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed. Disallowance of consultancy charges - consultancy income received - Held that:- The assessee had earned consultancy income of 60,11,330/- from the business of real estate. In order to finalise the deal, the assessee met with many persons like professionals and other persons, who had the knowledge about such place and influence over the local residents. Ld. Counsel in course of hearing clarified that in Himachal Pradesh, sale and purchase of land cannot take place without the intervention of Himachal people and therefore the assessee had to take consultancy and advisory services in the matter of land acquisition from Mr. Surinder Pal and Mr. Sachin Shridhar. The necessary confirmations along with income-tax particulars were filed before the assessing officer in respect of Mr. Sachin Shridhar for payment of ₹ 9,65,000/-. Necessary confirmation along with affidavit, bank statement and acknowledgement of the ITR from Mr. Sachin Shridhar was also filed. Similarly, in respect of Mr. Surinder Pal, all evidences were filed. Therefore, there was no basis for making any disallowance. As regards the commission expenses, a sum of ₹ 14,41,070/- was paid to M/s Starlit Infrastructure Ltd. for the services rendered by them during FY 2007-08. Copy of the confirmation along with bills, affidavit and income-tax return for AY 2008-09 was also filed. The services of M/s Starlit Infrastructure Ltd. were taken for purchase and consolidation of land. Payment of commission was made directly on assessee’s instructions by M/s SKIL Himachal Infrastructure & Tourism Ltd. to M/s Starlit Infrastructure Ltd. The said party had charged service tax and had also paid necessary income-tax on the aid income. Confirmations from M/s SKIL Himachal Infrastructure & Tourism Ltd. was also filed. The other payments were to architect which could not be disputed in case of real estate deal, as the same was paid for preparation of detailed architectural and utility drawings. Copies of the bills were also filed. As regards the payment to Mr. Sant Kumar Sharma of ₹ 55,742/-, the copy of confirmations could not be provided as he died on 9-6-2010. However, assessee filed copy of his return of income for A.Y. 2008-09. In regard to payment to Shri Ravinder Kumar Sharma of ₹ 55,642/-, assessee filed copy of confirmation, bill & income tax return. Considering the overwhelming evidence on record, we do not find any reason to doubt the genuineness of assessee’s claim as also the purpose for which the services were taken by the assessee for the consultancy income received from M/s SKIL Himachal Infrastructure & Tourism Ltd. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|