9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 305X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... et out in first para of the impugned order, viz., whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ['CIT(A)'] erred in deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer ('AO') on account of failing on the part of the Assessee company to deduct tax under Section 194 H of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') in respect of the payments made to Vikram Electric Equipment Pvt. Ltd. ('VEEPL'). 3. In the impugned order the ITAT has relied on its earlier order passed in ITA Nos. 2361 and 1953/Del/2011 in the case of Finian Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. (order dated 5th October 2011) where similar transactions of payments made by the Assessee to consolidators of land pursuant to the agreement entered into by the Assessee with DLF Commercial Project Cor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... P. Ltd. (order dated 5th November 2015 in ITA No. 270 of 2015). v. CIT v. Finian Estates Developers Pvt. Ltd. and CIT v. First India Estate and Services Pvt. Ltd. (order dated 26th August 2015 in ITA No. 234 of 2014 and ITA No. 236 of 2012) 5. The Court would like to refer to the order dated 5th November 2015 in CIT v. Zebian Real Estate where there is a discussion of the background under which the above orders came to be passed. The central question which arose in all those cases concerned the payments made to VEEPL by the Assessee as 'consolidator' to acquire land pursuant to the agreement entered into by the Assessee with DLF Commercial Project Corporation. It is not in dispute that the Memorandum of Understanding ('MOU') entered in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inian Estates. He urged that whereas in the present case the sale consideration as reflected in the sale deed produced before the AO was Rs. 8,41,84,664, the purchase price shown in the books of account was Rs. 15,85,22,527. Here the Assessee had booked Rs. 7,43,37,863 to the purchases over and above the amount reflected in the sale deed and this payment was made directly to VEEPL. According to him this raises a question as to the genuineness of the transaction between the Assessee and the VEEPL and this was the basis on which the AO proceeded to hold that the tax had to be deducted at source under Section 194 of the Act. 8. There is a difficulty in accepting the above submission of the learned counsel for the Revenue. In the first place, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
