As per the agreements, assessee had paid their respective consideration amount. As per the aforesaid flat buyer Agreement, the Corporate Debtor had promised to deliver the possession of the flats within a prescribed timeline.
As a result, assessee was required to deduct TDS on payments made to Bemo. AO invoked Section 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of tax on Rs. 12,69,79,006, disallowing the deduction.
There was no deliberate intention on the part of assessee not to disclose the correct information or to evade payment of duty and as such it was not open to the Central Excise Officer to proceed to recover duties in the manner indicated in proviso to section 11A.
The owners entered into a Development Agreement with New India City Developers Private Limited ( Developer ) to develop a group housing project and an IT Park on the said land after obtaining the required approvals.
The law was well settled that the Resolution Plan which was approved by the CoC could not be allowed to be withdrawn and any clause which contemplate withdrawal of the plan was unenforceable unless section 30(2) of the IBC was breached.
Appellant had submitted that it was a secured financial creditor of the Corporate Debtor. Appellant’s financial debt was secured by charge on certain units and / or charge on total FSI (totaling to about 34,200 sq. ft.) in the project that was being developed by the CD.
Assessee had filed his income tax return on in which he declared a total income of Rs. 35,00,611, accepted under Section 143(1). A subsequent search and seizure operation on Pipavav Defence and Offshore Engineering Co. brought assessee’s finances under scrutiny, as he was allegedly linked to the company.
Aggrieved by the relief granted by CIT(A) to assessee, Revenue preferred Appeal before ITAT for the assessment years under consideration and against the deletion of additions made by AO. ITAT dismissed the appeal.
Assessee contended that the complaint filed by Respondent No.3 had not stated about the boundaries of Plot No 14 and there was no clarity as to from which side the encroachment was alleged to be carried out.
There was no error in the order of the Adjudicating Authority, accepting the outstanding dues as ‘operational debt’, to be paid as per the provisions of the Resolution Plan.
