9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 825X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A)-9, New Delhi dated 17.06.2019 for the Assessment Year 2016-17, wherein, the disallowances made by the ld ACIT, Circle-26(1), Delhi of Rs. 355999/- as per assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 16.12.2018 is upheld. The assessee aggrieved with the order has preferred the following grounds of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5999/- on account of flat forfeiture. The assessee was questioned, explanation was obtained however, and same was rejected. The ld AO was of the view that this amount is not in the nature of revenue expenses as these are in nature of advance made therefore, cannot be allowed u/s 37 of the Act. It was held to be a capital expenditure. 3. These disallowances was contested by the assessee before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ack since the unit booked in their name already cancelled and amount forfeited. The assessee cancelled the forfeiture of the amount of Rs. 355999/- since the amount already forfeited was already considered as an income and revenue receipt in assessment order 2015-16, the amount now paid out of above income was considered as a revenue expenditure and claimed as a deduction. Both the lower authoriti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... current year on booking of the flat, cannot be held to be capital expenditure. When the said sum was received, the revenue taxed as revenue receipt and when the same sum is refunded the revenue treated it as a capital expenditure. Thus blowing hot and cold in the same breath by revenue is not acceptable. Accordingly, reversing the order of the lower authorities the ld AO is directed to delete the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
