TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 611X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are relevant in determining the nature of transactions. It is also to be seen that as per the agreement the land owner had a fifty per cent share in the profits of the project. These matters have not been considered by the Ao. The CIT(Appeals), even though might have appreciated these facts, have not brought out the same in his order. Since both the authorities have discussed only half truth, hence matter is remitted back to the file of the AO Dis-allowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - non-deduction of TDS u/s 194C - Held that:- Both the authorities have not examined whether such services were required in the business carried on by the assessee. Matter remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration of the issues. - ITA Nos.282 & 283 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the Revenue for the assessment year 2005-06, the ground is against the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) accepting the claim of the assessee for deduction by way of provision made towards amounts payable to land owners. It is the case of the Revenue that this claim was later on made by the assessee only after it was found that the claim of deduction under section 80IB initially raised by the assessee was not sustainable in law. 5. In the appeal filed by the Revenue for the assessment year 2006-07 as well, this is the only ground. 6. We heard Shri V.Jagadisan, the learned chartered accountant appearing for the assessee and Dr. Yogesh Kamath, the learned Joint Commissioner of Income-tax appearing for the Revenue. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s made for service charges payable to Mr.Alphones Liguouri could not be held to be genuine. Accordingly, those provisions were also disallowed and added to the income of the assessee. The consultancy charge paid to Shri V.J.Kumaravel was disallowed on the ground of non deduction of tax at source. 9. When these additions and disallowances were taken in first appeal before the Commissioner of Incometax( Appeals), the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in disallowing the provisions made by the assessee towards payments to plot owners. Regarding the other two disallowances, the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) confirmed the orders of the assessing authority. Both the assessee as well as th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eement the land owner had a fifty per cent share in the profits of the project. These matters have not been considered by the Assessing Officer. The Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals), even though might have appreciated these facts, have not brought out the same in his order. 11. As far as the Revenue is concerned, it is highly carried away by the withdrawal of the claim made under section 80IB and the fresh introduction of another claim towards provision for payment to land owners. As the substitution of these claims happened consequent to the survey carried out by the department, the strong impression rightfully created in the mind of the Revenue is that the assessee is only making good of the withdrawal of the earlier claim under sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
