CIT Vs Bharat Promoters (Madras High Court)
ITAT is the final fact-finding authority & unless its findings are shown to be perverse or unsupported by evidence, interference by the High Court under Section 260A is unwarranted: Madras High Court
Assessee furnished the return of its income declaring a taxable income which included a declared short term capital gain & income from other sources. AO passed 143(3) order making certain additions.
On appeal, before the CIT(A) submitted that they had incurred the expenses of Rs.6,97,78,544/- for the development of land in the following manner (i)Expenses for levelling/filling of land purchased by them : Rs.2,96,67,138/ (ii)Road Development Expenditure : Rs.1,92,56,890/ (iii)Repairing of compound wall : Rs. 40,17,590/- (iv)Repairing of old damaged well & overhead tank, pipeline, diesel motor & electrification : Rs. 90,18,834/ (v)Salary, wages, travel expenses, rent, electricity charges, etc. : Rs. 78,17,673/-
CIT (A) allowed the appeal in part, allowing a portion of the expenditure shown in the return under the head development expenses & the commission paid to the brokers. It had fully allowed deductions under the head, ”Interest on the capital account” to the extent of Rs.1,01,75,000/- claimed by Assesee.
Aggrieved by the order passed by CIT (A), both Assessee & Dept filed appeals before ITAT. Appeal filed by Assessee was allowed while that of the Dept was dismissed.
