TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 900X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eding against the company has been initiated by the revenue by issuing a notice u/s 148 - It is not out of the place to mention that there are certain loopholes in the transaction carried out by the assessee with the company namely Frontline Financial Services Ltd but the same cannot be used against the assessee. It is also important to note that the company namely Frontline Financial Services Ltd by virtue of the MOU dated 15 April 2008 got the right which could have been enforced by way of suit for specific performance. Thus, it appears the assessee has made the payment to the company avoid such litigation. The assessee cannot be subjected to tax for the capital gain on the amount mentioned in such memorandum of understanding - Decided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in assessing the gross sale consideration at Rs.10400000 in the following terms mentioned in the impugned assessment order u/s 143(3) of the act, as the appellant having disclosed the sale consideration at Rs.10400000, he ought to have dislodged the action of the AO of carrying out further addition to gross sale consideration of Rs.89,71,300/- 14. the entire sale consideration of Rs.1,03,00,000 Rs.1,00,000 i.e. Rs.1,04,00,000/- (which the assessee has shown as sale consideration in the computation of income) should be taxed in the hands of the assessee. 3. In law, in the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case, the Ld. CIT(A) has gro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roperty to Smt. Anitaben Bhojrabhai and Smt. Pravinaben Prajapati for consideration of Rs. 1.04 crores. Accordingly, the assessee has shown consideration at Rs. 1.04 crores but claimed the deduction of the difference amount of Rs. 89 lacs i.e. (Rs.1.04 crores 15 lacs). It was submitted by the assessee that as per the MOU, the consideration received by the assessee over and above to Rs.15 lacs, the same was to be paid to Front Line Financial Services Ltd. Accordingly, the assessee has paid the sum of Rs. 89 lacs to Frontline Financial Services Ltd. and claimed the deduction against the sale of property. 5. However, the AO found that the assessee to avoid the payment of tax liability has adopted colorable device by showing the payment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsaction to avoid the tax liability. The view of the lower authorities was based on various reasoning which have been elaborated in the preceding paragraph. 10.1 Be that as it may be, the undisputed fact is that the assessee has made the payment to Frontline Financial Services Ltd of ₹89,00,000/- through the banking channel which has also been accepted by the company namely Frontline Financial Services Ltd. This fact can be verified from the declaration, undertaking furnished by the company namely Frontline Financial Services Ltd which is placed on pages 37 to 39 of the paper book. The relevant extract is reproduced as under: 5. That the company has received Rs.89,00,000/- (Rupees Eighty nine Lacs) from Shri Babusinh Thakor as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sole responsibility of the Company and the Company shall pay and reimburse to Shri Babusinh Thakor the amount of such tax, demand or loss on damage. 10.3 All these facts discussed above were very much available before the authorities below. Despite that no proceeding against the company has been initiated by the revenue by issuing a notice under section 148 of the Act. It is not out of the place to mention that there are certain loopholes in the transaction carried out by the assessee with the company namely Frontline Financial Services Ltd but the same cannot be used against the assessee in the light of the discussions made in the preceding paragraph. 10.4 It is also important to note that the company namely Frontline Financial Ser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
