Case Law Details
ACIT Vs Jasmine Buildtech (P) Ltd. (ITAT Delhi)
We have perused the orders in the group company’s cases and it is held in both M/s. IAG Promoters and Developers (P) Ltd. and Westland Developers (P) Ltd. that when the payments are not claimed as expense no disallowance arises. We, therefore, hold that disallowance under section 40(A)(3) is not sustainable and the same has to be deleted.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:-
These two appeals are filed by the Revenue and the assessee respectively challenging the order dated 18-12-2012 in Appeal No. 495/09-10/284 passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-XXXIII, New Delhi (hereinafter for short called as the “learned Commissioner (Appeals)”).
2. Fats relevant for the disposal of the appeal are that the assessee is a company incorporated under Companies Act, 1956 and is dealing in the Real Estate Development and Operations. For the assessment year 2007-08 they have filed their return of income on 22-10-2007 declaring the loss of Rs. 9,050. Assessing officer during the scrutiny under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short called as the “Act”) made three additions namely a sum of Rs. 43,88,201 on account of the interest paid in respect of the post dated cheques issued by the assessee to the vendors of the land, Rs. 97,45,249 on account of the additional payments made over and above the sale consideration mentioned in the agreement of sale and a further sum of Rs. 4,56,502 on account of the cash payments made for purchase of land from the farmers by invoking section 40(A)(3) of the Act.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
