Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 1446 - AT - Income TaxAddition being compensation paid to Shri Balu Nivruti Kadali - sale of land with a road which was already constructed along East-West direction of the property was agreed to be maintained as it was- assessee entered into an agreement with Shri Balu Nivruti Kadali and sought permission to alter the road for approval of layout and paid compensation for it - HELD THAT:- The assessee has mentioned in the said notarized document that no rights in the said road were transferred on the earlier occasion to any person in any form or any consideration was received for such transfer. The said document also mentioned the trail of transaction between the parties, i.e. Shri Balu Nivruti Kadali to Shri Martand Gomaji Shardul and then to the assessee. In the said facts and circumstances where the transaction has been completed through the written documents and a perusal of the notarized agreement also reflect that the photo identity of Shri Balu Nivruti Kadali was there and the agreement was duly notarized and hence, the same merits to be accepted. Merely because the said person could not be produced would not disentitle the assessee form the aforesaid claim of expenditure especially in the circumstances where the assessee was no more and the case was being represented by his wife (as legal heir). Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of the assessee. Computation of accumulated profits for the purpose of section 2(22)(e) - HELD THAT:- We find that the said issue raised by the assessee is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT Vs. M.B. Stockholding (P) Ltd. [2015 (5) TMI 232 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] C onsidering the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act, more particularly, Explanation 2 to Section 2(22)(e) of the Act, it cannot be said that the learned Tribunal has committed any error in directing the Assessing Officer not to include the current profit to be part of accumulated profit while determining the amount of deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. While determining the amount of deemed dividend under Explanation 2 to Section 2(22)(e) of the Act, the current profit was not required to be included to be part of accumulated profit. - Decided in favour of assessee Pro-rata deduction u/s.80IB(10) - HELD THAT- We find the issue stands covered by a series of decisions including the decision of Pune Bench of the Tribunal in DCIT Vs. M/s. Om Associates [2018 (6) TMI 1581 - ITAT PUNE] for the assessment year 2011-12. Accordingly, we uphold the order of CIT(A) in allowing proportionate deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the Act. - Decided against revenue
|