TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 592X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wards cost of improvement. We, accordingly, confirm the disallowance to the extent of ₹ 45.90 lacs. So far as the balance of ₹ 99.10 lacs is concerned, a perusal of the paper book shows that the assessee has offered the same as remission/cessation of liability in A.Y. 2013-14 and has paid the taxes accordingly. Since, the assessee has offered this amount as its income in subsequent year if the disallowance is sustained during the year under consideration, it would amount to double taxation of the same amount. Therefore, in our understanding of the fact, this disallowance cannot be sustained. We, accordingly, modify the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and direct the A.O. to confirm the addition of ₹ 45.90 lacs and delete the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Financial Year 2009-10. The assessee was asked to submit details of improvement done in F.Y. 2009-10. In response the assessee submitted the ledger account of Rama Realty to whom contract for improvement of asset was given. On perusal of the copy of the ledger account, the A.O. found that the assessee has credited amount of ₹ 1.45 crores with the narration being the amount paid to party up to 31.03.2010 . The A.O. noticed that the payments amounting to ₹ 50 lacs were made in total to Rama Realty and the closing balance was shown at ₹ 1.45 crores. 6. The A.O. was of the opinion that the amount of ₹ 1.45 crores was not paid during the year under consideration and only 50 lacs was paid towards the cost of improveme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cess. 11. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently stated that both the lower authorities have grossly erred in not appreciating the facts in true perspective. The ld. counsel brought to our notice that out of the balance of ₹ 1.45 crores, the assessee has paid ₹ 45.90 lacs to Rama Realty as on 31.03.2012. The ld. counsel further stated that the amount of ₹ 99.10 lacs has been treated as income for A.Y. 2013-14 on which taxes have been paid, as ₹ 99.10 lacs was never paid to Rama Realty and, therefore, the same has been offered by the assessee itself as income from subsequent assessment year. 12. It is the say of the ld. counsel u/s. 48(i) It is provided that expenditure incurred in connection w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upon the assessee to demonstrate that he has actually incurred some expenditure, whether paid or payable, by bringing cogent material evidence on record. Except for the copy of the ledger account of Rama Realty, the assessee has not brought any evidence to demonstrate that some improvement work has been done on the impugned property. The assessee has simply referred to the various clauses of the sale deed to show that the assessee had to develop the property as per the contractual obligation made with the buyer Raychem RPC Ltd. But, we find that the sale deed was executed on 28.01.2010. Therefore, it cannot be said that the various conditions in the sale deed were condition precedent . Although, the A.O. has allowed ₹ 50 lacs paid d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the fact, this disallowance cannot be sustained. We, accordingly, modify the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and direct the A.O. to confirm the addition of ₹ 45.90 lacs and delete the addition of ₹ 99.10 lacs. 19. In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed. ITA No. 1071/Ahd/2014 for A.Y. 2010-11 Revenue s appeal 20. The sole grievance of the revenue is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the exemption u/s. 54EC of the act. 21. While scrutinizing the return of income, the A.O. noticed that the assessee has claimed deduction u/s. 54EC in its return of income for investment in infrastructure bonds worth of ₹ 1 crore. Copies of bonds certificate issued by REC and NHAI allotted on 31.03.2010 wer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claim to ₹ 50,00,000/- only. The appellant had invested ₹ 50,00,000/- each in two different financial years, but within six months period from the date of transfer of capital assets and therefore it is eligible to claim deduction u/s 54EC up to ₹ 1 Crore. The AO has mentioned in the assessment order that the appellant had claimed deduction u/ s 54 EC in its return of income of ₹ 1 crore for investment in infrastructure bonds worth of ₹ 1 crore. As per the AO the appellant had submitted copies of the bond certificate issued by the REC and NHAI allotted on 31/3/2010 and 30/6/2010 respectively. As per the AO the appellant had transferred the long term capital Assets on 28th January 2010, hence the six months perio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
