TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 687X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een disallowed as one not incurred for the purpose of business of the Assessee. HELD THAT:- As far as the first item of disallowance is concerned, assessee could not point out as to why the aforesaid sum cannot be disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) - Form 3CD report clearly mentioned a sum of ₹ 2,24,000/- as the sum on which TDS was not made. The plea of the Assessee that the aforesaid sum is the sum total of all small payments made to different persons and that each of the payment was below the threshold limit of sum on which TDS has to be made as per law, has not been substantiated by the Assessee. In these circumstances, we confirm the order of CIT regarding this addition. - Decided against assessee. Advances written off in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esseee against the order dated 27.1.2016 of the Principal CIT, Bengaluru, passed under section 263 of the Act, in relation to Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The assessee is engaged in the business of property development. For Assessment Year 2011-12, the assessee filed return of income on 28.9.2011 declaring Nil income. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act by order dated 28.3.2014, accepting the return of income filed by the assesseee. The CIT, in exercise of the powers under section 263 of the Act was of the view that the aforesaid order of the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue for the following 2 reasons: 1) As per 3CD report, TDS has not been deducted on ₹ 2,24,000/- and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r procuring land. The assessee submitted that there were certain bickering and misunderstanding with Mr. Rakesh Rastogi and in terms of clause 7 of the MoU dated 1.5.2007, he forfeited the sum of ₹ 50 lakhs. The assessee produced a letter dated 6.7.2009 from Mr. Rakesh Rastogi wherein he had mentioned that he has not incurred any expenses or paid any advance for acquiring lands pursuant to the MoU dated 1.5.2007. Another letter dated 23.4.11 of Mr. Rakesh Rastogi stating and confirming that the advance paid by the assessee was being forfeited as the assessee did not make further payments as required by Mr. Rakesh Rastogi. The assessee claimed that the aforesaid expenses were in connection with the business of the assessee and ought to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sum of ₹ 50 lakhs which was advances written off in the Profit and Loss Account which is a sum forfeited by Mr. Rakesh Rastogi is concerned, the CIT was of the view that that Mr. Rakesh Rastogi had not paid any advance or incurred any expense pursuant to the MoU dated 1.5.2007. Further, under clause 7 of the MoU, there is no right for Mr. Rakesh Rastogi to forfeit the amount received from the assessee. CIT also referred to clause 20 of the agreement which provided that Mr. Rakesh Rastogi has to refund unutilized amount out of the advance received from the assessee. The CIT referred to clause 23 of the MoU under which assessee was obliged to give further advance of ₹ 50 lakh on utilization of the first instalment of the advance. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ful consideration to the rival submissions. As far as the first item of disallowance of ₹ 2,24,000/- is concerned, the learned Counsel for the assessee could not point out as to why the aforesaid sum cannot be disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Form 3CD report clearly mentioned a sum of ₹ 2,24,000/- as the sum on which TDS was not made. The plea of the Assessee that the aforesaid sum is the sum total of all small payments made to different persons and that each of the payment was below the threshold limit of sum on which TDS has to be made as per law, has not been substantiated by the Assessee. In these circumstances, we confirm the order of CIT regarding this addition. 9. As far as the addition of ₹ 50 lakh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
