New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (2) TMI 619 - ITAT PUNE

2016 (2) TMI 619 - ITAT PUNE - TMI - Denial of deduction of cost of selling - denial on the ground that in the agreement to sale with DSKDL there is no mention of this cost to be incurred by the assessee and that the amount has not been quantified at all - Held that:- We find an identical issue had come up before the Tribunal in the case of other group members namely Smt. Shilpa M. Kulkarni and other connected appeals has decided the issue in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue observ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the case of the present assessee held that the socalled MOU was an afterthough and self-created and self-serving document especially when the order passed in the case of D.S. Kulkarni & Co. is prior to the assessment order passed in the instant case and the same has not been disturbed by the CIT u/s.263 of the I.T. Act till now.

As following the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of other group members and in absence of any contrary material brought to our n .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

I, Pune relating to Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed her return of income on 30-09-2009 declaring total income of ₹ 14,75,060/-. During the course of assessment proceedings the AO noted that assessee in her computation of income has disclosed short term capital gain of ₹ 15,75,000/-, the details of which are as under : Image No. 1 3. From the various details furnished by the assessee during the course of assessm .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

74/- and another additional amount stating it to be cost of selling amounting to ₹ 10,79,82,051/- . This cost of selling is the amount refunded by the assessee to DSK Ltd for certain development work to have been undertaken by her. The development work to have been undertaken by her is stated to be for such work such as fencing, removing of debris, excavation, amalgamation of land, leveling of land, mojini, construction of walls, and other related developments. Apparently as per the submis .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

velopment work, is a huge amount of ₹ 10,79,82,051/- which was to be used within one year, it was never decided or quantified in the said sale deeds, hence, it is development work expenses amounting to ₹ 10,79,82,051/- the estimate prepared by the assessee and refunded by her to DSK Ltd. was held as not allowable to her. (iv) When compared to the cost of land the cost of development is almost as much as the cost of land. It is pertinent to mention that the lands sold by the assessee .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

leaning 1480962 Construction of retaining/compound wall 9316774.13 Construction of entire road network in concrete with tremix finish 55813510 Plumbing Development of works External Drainage Development Work 2407996 Water Development Work 24795865 Storm Water Development Works 2541512 Excavation, Refilling & levelling of Ground & disposing surplus material 11329359.30 Total 107982050.58 (v) The pertinent question here is why would the assessee be required to construct retaining/compound .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sessee. (vii) The amount to be expended for the development work, the amount of ₹ 10,79,82,051/- which was apparently to be used within one year, was never decided or quantified in the said sale deed, hence the development work expenses, refunded by the assessee later to DSKD Ltd. is an afterthought to reduce the liability of short term capital gain. The money refunded by the assessee to the company was prompted by the fact that the proposed SEB project of the company did not materialize, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

irectors etc. (ix) The assessee has stated in the submissions that the development work was to be carried out by her within one year of the agreements of the sale, but from the submission it is seen the estimate was prepared by her only in January 2009, while she would be required to finish the work by August 2009, when the last agreement of sale is dated August 2008. The estimate was never made before the lands were sold and clearly indicates that it is an afterthought with a design to reduce t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ligation to undertake the massive development work, or to return the money was never enjoined on the assessee by the sale deeds. The sale deeds merely mention vaguely certain development work to be carried out within 12 months of the sale. (xi) The decision of Kerala High Court cited by the assessee cannot rescue of the assessee as the facts of this case are different from the facts of the case cited above, and not comparable. (xii) As per the scheme of taxation of capital gains as per the provi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s not an eligible deduction for the purposes of computation of income by way of capital gains. 4. In view of the above discussion and points raised, the AO was of the opinion that the money refunded by the assessee is a colourable device and an attempt by her to reduce her tax liability which has arisen due to the sale made by her. He therefore issued a show cause notice dated 05-12-2011 asking the assessee to substantiate her claim of short term capital gain. 5. The assessee approached the Addl .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of land etc. In the said MOU various conditions have been mentioned. On the basis of aforesaid MOU, sale deeds were executed between the assessee and DSKDL. The sale deeds include nature of development work that has to be performed by the assessee which was essence of the sale deeds. It was submitted that it is her contractual obligation to perform the work and it is also mentioned that if there is change in proposed project the assessee has to refund the money set apart for development work. T .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

estimates for land development work with the help of officials/technical persons of DSKDL which was at ₹ 10,79,82,051/-. The said estimate was prepared in consultation with technical experts of DSKDL and accordingly the assessee and authorized personnel of DSKDL confirmed the same on 27-11-2008 by executing the deed of confirmation. Therefore, the amount of expenditure to be expended on the development work was fixed. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that the amount of expenditure was not .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

both the parties mutually. After final decision of refunding the amount, DSKDL passed a journal entry in their books and cost of their WIP got reduced by the said amount. It was submitted that refund of money by the assessee will increase the taxation in the hands of DSKDL and therefore there is no revenue loss. On the contrary, if the said expenditure is disallowed, it will amount to double taxation, i.e. in the hands of the assessee as well as in the hands of DSKDL and in subsequent year there .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the cost of amount to be spent on development work on land was finalized by both the parties after series of discussions from time to time. The assessee further submitted that DSKDL was to transfer the developed land to the joint venture with foreign company at higher rate of ₹ 1.55 crores per acre approximately which indicates that considering the development cost the foreign company had also accepted the above rate for the land which was even higher than what the assessee has charged to .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

at a part of the consideration to the extent of ₹ 10,79,82,051/-did not accrue to the assessee and it was refunded to DSKDL. Therefore, the consideration for transfer of property must be reduced by the above amount of ₹ 10,79,82,051/- for determining the capital gains u/s.48. It was further submitted that the same issue had come up in the case of D.S. Kulkarni and Co. for A.Y. 2008-09. They had also sold various lands at Fhursingi to DSKDL and made provisions for development work. At .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sment order) : (a) Agreement to sale should be perused thoroughly and all the terms and conditions should be examined to ascertain the facts as narrated by the assessee. (b) MOU between assessee and DSKDL should be examined vis-àvis terms and conditions mentioned therein. (c) A.O. should ascertain what is the position in the case of DSK Co. for A.Y. 2008-09, whether facts of that case are same as in this case and what was the decision arrived at in that case during the course of assessmen .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

A.O is directed to frame assessment order after considering and examining all the issues/evidences/documents submitted by the assessee. 10. After examining the direction of the Addl.CIT, Range-3 and considering the submissions made by the assessee the AO held that the refund of money of ₹ 10,79,82,051/- by the assessee to DSKDL is not an allowable deduction in computing the short term capital gains. While doing so, he noted that the sale deeds by which the lands have been transferred did .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

for the sale of lands and work to be done. The MOU produced by the assessee is dated 16-08-2007 and there was no mention of the existence of such an MOU till now, i.e. 26-12-2011. The assessee, by way of sale deeds, is under no obligation to undertake the development work claimed by her. The MOU is a self serving document, the veracity of which is in doubt as it is neither a registered deed nor a notarised one, therefore, the MOU prepared on a ₹ 100/- stamp paper and presented for the firs .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hich is in doubt and it is neither a registered deed nor a notarized one. The AO therefore rejected the claim of refund of money of ₹ 10,79,82,051/- to DSKDL as an allowable expenditure and determined the total short term capital gain of the assessee at ₹ 10,95,57,050/-. 12. Before CIT(A) the assessee reiterated the same arguments as made before the AO. The assessee filed a detailed submission and a paper book which contained the documents and related details which were filed before .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

gs before the Additional CIT, Range-3. 13. As regards the non-completion of work within 12 months as per the terms of the sale deed is concerned it was explained that due to the changed scenario after the inclusion of a foreign partner GTC with respect to the planning of SEZ, the developer DSKDL went on instructing the assessee not to commence the development work. With respect to the non-mention of the development cost to be borne by the assessee in the sale deed it was explained that the natur .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on 27-11-2008 for which a deed of confirmation was also executed. Regarding the observation of the AO for carrying of development work on lands which were scattered it was submitted that the development work was to be carried out on each piece of land as finally the entire lands were to be amalgamated and the development of each seller was controlled and supervised by DSKDL and, therefore, even though the lands were scattered, ultimately the same will be merged along with one project of DSKDL o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rm the work as per the MOU and Deed of confirmation and in the event of any change of size or specification of project or delay in instruction from DSKDL for development work, the assessee has to refund the money set apart for the said work as per para 3 of MOU and para (ix) of Deed of confirmation. 14. With respect to the notings of the Assessing Officer regarding the DSKDL having enhanced the value of land and passing the consideration to interested parties it was submitted that the proofs rel .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ntion of an afterthought. Regarding the observation of the Assessing Officer that refund of money is a colourable device to reduce tax liability and also with respect to the delay in refunding the money by the assessee to DSKDL it was submitted that DSKDL gave letter dated 30-09-2009 to the assessee seeking refund of amount and the assessee had given its acceptance wherein she agreed to refund the money within 8 to 10 months. The assessee explained that the said letter was given as per the MOU a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed it will result in double taxation, both in the hands and the assessee as well as DSKDL. Therefore, the fact clearly indicates that it is neither a colourable device nor an attempt to reduce the tax liability. Regarding the observation of the AO that refund of money is an afterthought to reduce the liability of capital gains, it was submitted that the same is not correct as part of the consideration to the extent of ₹ 10,79,82,051 did not accrue to the assessee. Further, the AO is duty b .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Ld.CIT(A) directed the AO to reduce the amount of ₹ 10,79,82,051/- from the sale consideration for computing short term capital gain. The relevant observation of Ld.CIT(A) from para 4.5 to 4.10 of the order reads as under : 4.5 The submission made by the appellant has been considered and material on record perused. It is undisputed fact that the appellant has sold various lands to the developers, i.e. DSK Developers who were desirous to purchase about 100 to 120 acres of contiguous land fo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t value was much low at 4.40 lacs per acre. The developer had offered the appellant such handsome consideration for sale only after the appellant had undertaken to develop the lands which was not an easy task the lands being agricultural and not suitable for SEZ. The appellant had even entered into MOU with the developer on 16-08-2007 whereby the appellant agreed to sell the land with the development as desired and agreed upon by the Company. The appellant only after the execution of the aforesa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

9 was executed which confined and quantified the expenditure The project of SEZ envisaged by developers M/s D.S. Kulkarni Developer Ltd had also been approved by the govt. vide its approval dated 26-7-2007. The facts brought on record do indicate that the development work got delayed because of the negotiation by the developer with the foreign Co. GTC Cyprus, Netherland. Though, subsequently the developers had to abandon the project SEZ because of the worsening economic scenario and the negotiat .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

roceedings. It is seen that the Assessing Officer has not considered the MOU, sale deed and the deed of confirmation filed by the appellant and without bringing any such material on record inferred the transaction to be colourable device and an attempt to reduce the tax liability. The Assessing Officer has also noted that the refund of money was an afterthought to reduce the liability of capital gains, however, the various developments which was taking place has not been considered by the Assess .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tual obligation which the appellant was bound to follow lest the deal would not have taken place. The Assessing Officer has thus failed to go into the merits of the expenditure estimation which were to be incurred by the appellant has been rejected outrightly. The Assessing Officer, has also not considered the issue of double taxation which has also been pointed out in the 144A proceedings. The fact which remained and which cannot be ignored while making an assessment is that the Assessing Offic .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. The Assessing Officer has not at all considered the other part of the transaction whereas it was incumbent on the Assessing Officer to consider the entire facts and the totality of the circumstances to be taken into account before arriving at a conclusion. The Assessing Officer has not been able to prove or bring on record any such material which could indicate the transaction to be sham rather has drawn inferences without having examined the same. 4.7. Under the Income tax Act, real income is .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ITR 102 (SC) wherein it is held that, it is the income which has really accrued or arisen to the assessee that is taxable and in the present case no such income has accrued or arisen so as to be treated as income. 4.7.1 The apex court in the case of Godhra Electricity Co. Vs. CIT 225 ITR 74 (SC) has elaborated and held that : Income tax is a levy on income. No doubt, the Income tax Act takes into account two points of time at which the liability to tax is attracted viz., the accrual of the inco .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

pplied is regarding incurring of expenditure wholly and exclusively in connection with transfer and that it is immaterial whether it was incurred prior or subsequent to the passing of title. It is also submitted that as per the MOU dated 16-08-2007 the appellant promised and took responsibility to carry out the development work on the said land as per the understanding and based on the same the consideration was fixed which included the said cost of the development work. It is also contended tha .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

held that expenditure wholly and exclusively incurred in connection with transfer has to be allowed and it is immaterial that the said expenditure was incurred subsequent to the sale deed. The appellant has relied on the following judicial contentions: 1. V.A. Vasumati vs. CIT (1980) 123 ITR 94 (KER) 2. CIT Vs. Dr.P. Rajendran (1981) 127 ITR 810 (Ker) 3. Kalpataru Construction Vs. DCIT (2007) 13 SOT 194 (Mum) 4. S.S. Jhaveri Vs. Union of India (2006) 286 ITR 428 (Bom). 4.8.1 In the case of V.A. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e purpose of the section, it is immaterial that the expenditure was incurred subsequent to the award so long as it was incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the compulsory acquisition. In the present case also the expenditure incurred by the appellant is with reference to and is in connection with wholly and exclusively related to the transfer of the land. 4.8.2 In the case of Dr. P. Rajendran, cited supra, the Kerala High Court held that the words in connection with used in clause .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d by the appellant of Kalpataru Construction supra, the ITAT, Mumbai, has held that subsequent events contingent upon which the said consideration of capital asset was variable then such event has to be considered while computing the capital gain. 4.8.4 In the present case, the value of land in question increased substantially on account of the various improvement and development work which was to be carried out as per the MOU dated 16-08-2007. Had such improvement upon the land not taken place .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

otential value of land in a real sense. In the present case also the appellant has carried out a diverse set of development work on the land such as construction of road network in concrete, removing bund, old huts, houses and cleaning grass, shrubs, debris etc. build the compound wall, which has indeed added value to the land for which the sale consideration received by the appellant was much more than the existing price as per the stamp duty valuation. 4.9 Sections 48 and 50 of the Act clarify .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

claim of the said improvement of the land was made before the A.O. though it was based on an estimate as per the MOU which fetched the appellant a much higher sum of money than it could have been without such improvement as envisaged in the memorandum and without which land deal would not have taken place and it certainly had to be added to the cost of the asset which the A.O. has failed to consider at the assessment stage. The sale of the capital asset and the development work to be carried out .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

akuntala Kantilal (1991) 190 ITR 56 (Bom) and followed in CIT Vs. Abram Alvi (2001) 247 ITR 312 (Bom) SLP dismissed and CIT Vs. Piroja C. patel (2000) 242 ITR 582 (Bom) it has been held that the phrase in connection with should be liberally construed and that, in a case of an acquisition of land the expenditure incurred for prosecuting a reference to the court expenditure incurred by assessee on maintenance of staff etc., pending finalization compensation will be deductible expenditure since cap .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ng relatable to the year in which it was incurred will not be quite appropriate in the context of computation of the capital gains in view of the language of section 45 r.w.s.48. Courts have observed that the crucial words in the provision are in connection with transfer . The expression means intrinsically linked with transfer. Such expenditure has to be wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer. Even if such expenditure has some nexus with the transfer it does not qualify for dedu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t of the word exclusively . The allowability has to be examined from this angle. 4.10 In view of the above stated facts, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is liable to be deleted and the grounds of appeal no.2 and 3 raised by the appellant are allowed. 16. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A) the Revenue is in appeal before us with the following grounds : 1. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in allowing the assessee's claim of deduction of ₹ 10,79,2 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

notarized, in the Sale Deeds which were executed subsequently. This clearly indicates that the so-called MOU was an after-thought and a self-created, self-serving document. 3. The Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in failing to appreciate that the total expenses of ₹ 10,79,22,051/- was a mere estimate which had neither been quantified in the Sale-Deed or in the MOU and, in the circumstances, the same could not be treated as expenditure incurred only and exclusively in conn .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

appreciate that the expenditure of ₹ 10,79,22,051/- claimed to have been incurred on a work such as removing of bunds, huts, grass, shrubs, construction of wall and road, plumbing works etc. was unreasonably high. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in failing to appreciate that the agreed sale consideration as per a registered deed would not alter merely because the Board of Directors of the buyer company passed a resolution to that effect and also when the refund as .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of the sale deeds, the assessee was not under any obligation either to incur any development expenses ore to refund any sum to the buyer and, therefore, the ratio in the case of V.A. Vasumati 123 ITR 94 and in the case of Valliammal, 127 ITR 713, would not apply to the assessee s case. 17. The Ld. Departmental Representative strongly challenged the order of the CIT(A). He submitted that whatever documents were produced are post fact scenario. He submitted that the liability of the assessee to p .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n by the Ld. Addl.CIT u/s.144A. The Ld.CIT(A) has gone by the real income theory and allowed the claim made by the assessee which is not proper under the facts and circumstances of the instant case. He submitted that when there was no mention of the socalled MOU dated 16-08-2007 in the sale deed and since the MOU was neither registered nor notarised, therefore, it clearly indicates that the socalled MOU was an afterthought and a selfserving document. Further, within a short span of time the asse .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nal in the case of other members of the group and the Tribunal vide ITA No.1163 to 1166/PN/2013 order dated 12-10-2015 has decided the issue and dismissed the grounds raised by the Revenue, therefore, this being a covered matter the grounds raised by the Revenue should be dismissed. 19. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the AO and the CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We find the AO in the instant case denied the deducti .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

st the Revenue by observing as under : 21. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the AO and CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. We find in the instant case the AO denied the deduction of cost of selling amounting to ₹ 8,30,66,636/- on the ground that in the agreement to sale with DSKDL, there is no mention of this cost to be incurred by the assessee and that .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sold by the assessee to D.S. Kulkarni Developers Ltd. are scattered over large expanse of land and the development work and expenses according to the AO is illogical. Further, in the sale deed, there is no clause which states that the money will be refunded in the event of such development work not carried out by the assessee. Further, according to the AO, the entire scenario of purchase of lands by the assessee and the almost immediate sale within short span of time for huge sums shows that it .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

m of deduction of ₹ 8,30,66,636/-. 22. It is the case of the revenue that since there was no mention of the socalled MOU dated 27-12-2007 in the sale deed which was executed subsequently and since the MOU was neither registered nor notarized, therefore, the MOU is nothing but an afterthought and selfcreated and self-serving document. Further, it is also the case of the revenue that the total expenses of ₹ 8,30,66,636/- was a mere estimate which had neither been quantified in the sale .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

a selfserving document. Further, M/s. D.S. Kulkarni Developers Ltd. has already reduced such expenditure from the work-in-progress. It is also the case of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that under identical facts and circumstances the Tribunal in the case of Shirish D. Kulkarni vide ITA No.709/PN/2012 dated 28-08-2014 for A.Y. 2008-09 has dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue. Therefore, this being a covered matter the appeal filed by the revenue has to be dismissed. 24. We find merit in t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

essee has submitted almost identical submissions before the AO in respect of such query raised by the AO in that case. Clause (1) of the reply given by D.S. Kulkarni & Co. read as under : With reference to captioned subject we would like to submit as under : As on 31-03-2008 provision outstanding is ₹ 95,76,016,240/- out of which provision ₹ 54,82,24,680/- is debited for this year towards expenses to be incurred for development of land at Fursungi. (1) During the F.Y.2007-08 we h .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

you have asked for justification. For this purpose, the facts of the case are to be properly appreciated and which are stated hereunder - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25. After considering the submission of the assessee, the MOU filed by the assessee was accepted by the AO and there is no addition/disallowance made in the body of the assessment order, a copy of which is placed at pages 349 to 359. Therefore, we find merit in the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assesse that once similar .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

R 59, the principle established is that if the revenue has not challenged the correctness of the law laid down by the High Court and has accepted it in the case of one assessee, then it is not open to the revenue to challenge its correctness in the case of other assessees, without just cause. 27. We find the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Vipul Krishna Ashtekar vide ITA No.1062/PN/2013 order dated 30- 12-2014 for A.Y. 2009-10 and other connected appeals at para 15 of the order ha .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Department from its accepted stand in similarly placed other cases where capital gains in pursuance to agreement with MTDC dated 26.03.1999 have been taxed over the years and not in assessment year 1999- 2000. It is also not denied that the assessee has declared capital gains in the return for assessment year 2003-04 onwards on the basis of the entitlement certificates issued by MTDC in terms of the agreement dated 26.03.1999. In- fact, in the case two of the appellants before us, namely, S/Shri .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

There is no justification brought out by the Revenue for such a departure. Therefore, on the principle of uniformity of approach which is required to be adopted by the Revenue in relation to similarly placed assessees as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in our view, the action of the income-tax authorities in the present case to initiate proceeding u/s 147/148 to assess capital gains on the basis of the agreement dated 26.03.1999 with MTDC is not justified. Therefore, when the AO in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

resent assessee held that the socalled MOU was an afterthough and self-created and self-serving document especially when the order passed in the case of D.S. Kulkarni & Co. is prior to the assessment order passed in the instant case and the same has not been disturbed by the CIT u/s.263 of the I.T. Act till now. 28. Further, the allegation of the revenue that D.S. Kulkarni Developers Ltd. was enhancing the value of the land in its books and passing the consideration to interested parties, i. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

D.S. Kulkarni Developers Ltd. and the same has been credited in their bank account. The Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sushila Shantilal Jhaveri (Supra)has held that subsequent events or developments occurring pendent lite can be considered if they have the effect of overshadowing the original case found by the court below. The relevant observations of the Hon ble Court read as under : Having heard Mr. Jhaveri, learned counsel for the petitioner, having seen the impact of the subseque .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

that it should have the effect of completely changing the colour of the original findings. In our considered view, the subsequent events brought on record have completely changed the colour of the original findings extracted in para. 2. Supra. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we feel that it would be necessary to direct the Commissioner of lncome-tax to reconsider the application filed and the submissions made by the petitioner on its own merits in the light of the subsequen .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e for purchase of lands. The assessee purchased the agricultural land during the F.Y. 2007-08 at Village-Fursungi. The assessee argues that the assessee purchased the land admeasuring 234.5R and the cost of acquisition to the assessee was to extend of ₹ 3,36,23,900/-. The assessee also paid the brokerage of ₹ 1,50,000/- which details were submitted before the Assessing Officer. He submits that D.S. Kulkarni Developers Ltd., which is renowned builder and developer in Pune was desirous .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

agricultural purposes and were not suitable for SEZ project. He submits that as per understanding between the assessee and developer, the said DSKDL was interested in purchasing the developed land subject to - 1) Removing & disposing bunds, old huts, cow sheds and houses. 2) Removing grass, shrubs, debris, disposing carting away and cleaning. 3) Government & private measurement of land (Mojani) 4) Construction of entire road network. 5) Construction of retaining/compound wall 6) Plumbin .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ur of the developer i.e. DSKDL, transferring the title in land admeasuring 204R for the consideration of ₹ 6.63 crores and the assessee retained about land admeasuring 30.5R with him. The assessee made the detailed estimate for the development work to be executed by the assessee on the said land and as per the said estimate the assessee was to incur the expenditure to the extent of ₹ 2,47,65,600/- which details were furnished to the Assessing Officer. He argues that the Assessing Off .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ake the said land compatible to the SEZ project. 6. The Ld. Counsel submits that the assessee filed before the Ld. CIT(A) the details of the expenditure to the extent of ₹ 1,62,33,447/- which were actually incurred when the hearing before the Ld. CIT(A) was going on. He argues that subsequently, the developer changed the project and made it Special Township Project. Due to change in the project, the assessee was instructed to hold the development work. He argues that the consideration fixe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he expenditure to the extent of ₹ 1,62,33,447/- but so far as reducing an amount of ₹ 85,32,153/- from the sale consideration is not proper as admittedly the assessee has not incurred the said expenditure. He pleaded for restoring the order of the Assessing Officer. 8. On perusal of the assessment order, we find that the Assessing Officer has not discussed the issue in detail but adopted shortcut by disallowing the entire claim of expenditure by writing 5-6 lines. We find that the Ld .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

to go with the SEZ project but decided to go with the Special Township Project and hence, the assessee was requested to withhold the further development. The assessee has produced the details of the expenditure on the said land before the Ld. CIT(A) to the extent of ₹ 1,62,33,447/- which has not been controverted before us only argument of the Revenue is that the said expenditure is incurred by the assessee not during the assessment year. 9. We find that the identical issue has come for th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

100/- copy placed at Page Nos. 46 to 52 of the Compilation . We also find that the Ld. CIT(A) has given the categorical finding that there was contractual obligation on the assessee to do the development and hence, to the extent of ₹ 1,62,33,447/- which were spent by the assessee up to 24-01-2011, the Ld. CIT(A) allowed the claim of deduction to the assessee. In respect of the balance amount of ₹ 85,32,153/-, the same was directed to be reduced from the sale consideration for the rea .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version