Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (7) TMI 213 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance u/s 40A(3) - Held that:- In similar set of facts and circumstances, the Tribunal in the case of assessee’s group company M/s Westland Developers Pvt. Ltd. categorically held that the assessee submitted detailed reasons to demolish invocation of section 40A(3) of the Act and admittedly no expenses relatable to the addition have been claimed and the assessee has successfully demonstrated that the payments were reimbursement made by CWPPL, therefore, there was no occasion to invoke section 40A(3) of the Act. Therefore addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) u/s 40A(3) of the Act is not found to be sustainable and we dismiss the same. - Decided in favour of assessee. Addition of of deemed dividend - CIT(A) delted addition - Held that:- In the present case, the AO could not bring any allegation against the assessee that the asessee is a shareholder/member of M/s Payor Companies, therefore, provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act cannot be invoked and the AO was not correct in making impugned addition and the same was rightly deleted by the CIT(A) following the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs Ankitech (2011 (5) TMI 325 - DELHI HIGH COURT ).- Decided in favour of assessee. Addition on interest on PDCs paid out of books of account - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- From the order of the Tribunal in the case of Precision Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (2015 (2) TMI 105 - ITAT DELHI ), we note that the similar issue was decided in favour of the assessee wherein held as after examining the loose papers seized at the time of search at the assessee’s premises, it was noticed that interest is paid on the PDCs only during the period of extension of PDCs and, therefore, he directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the interest on PDCs at the time of extension of the PDCs. He has further observed that if it is not possible to work out the extension of PDCs in each case, then the Assessing Officer is directed to recompute interest on PDCs after six months from the date of issue of the PDCs. Therefore, the ground of appeal of the Revenue that the CIT(A) deleted the addition of ₹ 5,06,625/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of interest on PDCs is factually incorrect and contrary to the order of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) directed to recalculate the interest on PDCs and there was a sound logic for such direction. His direction is based on material found and seized at the time of search.- Decided in favour of assessee. Additional payment in violation of stamp duty - CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer in view of the provisions of Section 37(1) - Held that:- The fact that the additional payments were warranted in order to avoid potential disputes amongst the claimants of the land holding which have been passed through to the land holders from generation to generation wherein there may be informal arrangements of ownership and or the payments were for commercial expediency to facilitate peaceful possession and registration of the land holding; where by the time Registry was made the landholders felt a higher payment was necessitated due to increase in value are issues which are not required to be addressed in the present proceedings - Decided in favour of assessee.
|