9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 1040X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Counsel with Ms Deeksha Gupta, Advocate For the Respondent Through: Mr Sachit Jolly, Advocate. RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.: (ORAL) 1. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11. 2. Via the instant appeal, the appellant/revenue seeks to assail the order dated 30.01.2020 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, "Tribunal"]. 3. According to Mr Ruchir Bhatia, learned senior standing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. The project involved the construction of a mall and a hotel. The hotel went by the name, Hotel Fortune Select Metropolitan. 6. The record shows that the integrated hotel project was transferred/sold to an entity named M/s. Multitude Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. for a consideration of Rs. 95 crores. The total revenue earned from the project in the period in issue was Rs. 135 crores. 7. The collabo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent/assessee, and consequently deleted the addition made by the AO. In reaching this conclusion, the Tribunal has taken note of the following aspects, which are not contested by the appellant/revenue: (i) The AO allowed deduction of Rs. 5,87,72,012/-, which represented expenses incurred out of the funds provided by MGF. (ii) Rs. 4,04,90,845/- paid by the respondent/assessee to MGF as brand f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the obligation cast on the respondent/assessee to share the revenue from the project represented commercial expediency. In a nutshell, the Tribunal applied the well-established principle that the AO could not have put itself in "the armchair of the businessman" and decide what amount would pass as a reasonable expenditure, vis-à-vis the subject project. 11. In our view, having regard to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
