2023 (8) TMI 670 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Upholds Revenue's Decisions on Various Tax Issues

M/s Vipul Infracon Pvt. Ltd. Versus Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-17, New Delhi And ACIT, Circle 26 (2), New Delhi Versus M/s Vipul Infracon Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal dismissed both the assessee's and the Revenue's appeals, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on all issues. The disallowance of loss on the sale ... Disallowance on account of loss on sale of the property in Vasant Square Mall - HELD THAT:- As assessee submitted that though the agreement for sale was entered on 29.09.2009 but the purpose thereof was carried out in the present assessment year. Assessee could not produce any material to justify the submission that the agreement of sale was given effect in the present assessment year. In these circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) and we uphold the same. This ground of assessee is dismissed. Addition on account of interest and rent expenses - HELD THAT:- Payments made to the parties is fully verifiable and the fund received from the parties were received by way of cheques and the same were utilized by the assessee for its business purpose for completing the project and the assessee has also made the TDS on interest payment and the funds received were on the basis of valid MOU against booking of space and on the basis of fixed return plan offered by the assessee, hence, the expenditure incurred was for the purpose of commercial expediency and meeting the fund requirement of the business. We further find that CIT(A) has deleted the addition by following the order of his predecessor. No infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A), hence, we affirm the same and dismiss the ground no. 1 raised by the Revenue. Addition on account of compensation given to various parties - HELD THAT:- We note that since the project was given from Gannon Dunkerly to M/s Merlyn Projects Ltd, so the credit has to be given on the shortfall worked out in the quantity of steel and thus this expenditure is valid claim of the assessee and made for the purpose of business. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we are of the considered opinion, that the above expenditure of Rs. 2,24,08,048/-, on account of compensation given to various parties are made for the purpose of business, hence, the same were rightly deleted by the CIT(A), which do not require any interference on our part, therefore, we affirm the same and dismiss the ground no. 2 raised by the Revenue. Addition u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D - HELD THAT:- As in view of Cheminvest Ltd. case [2015 (9) TMI 238 - DELHI HIGH COURT] as well as on the anvil of ITAT decision in assessee’s own case decided [2017 (10) TMI 1637 - ITAT DELHI] in Assessee’s appeal (AY 2010-11) and on the face of the factual position that there is no dispute as to the assessee not deriving any exempt income, we are of the considered view that disallowance made by the AO is not permissible where no exempt income is received or receivable during the relevant previous year. CIT(A) has rightly held that Assessee has not earned any exempt income, after perusing the computation of income and the copy of balance sheet and by relying upon the decision of Holcim India Pvt. Ltd. [2014 (9) TMI 434 - DELHI HIGH COURT] wherein, it has been held that if there is no dividend income, no disallowance can be made u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D - Decided against revenue. Issues Involved:1. Disallowance of loss on sale of property.2. Addition on account of interest and rent expenses.3. Addition on account of compensation given to various parties.4. Addition under Section 14A.Summary:1. Disallowance of Loss on Sale of Property:The assessee contested the disallowance of Rs. 95,27,110/- as loss on the sale of property in Vasant Square Mall. The Assessing Officer (AO) noted that the property was sold on 29.09.2009, relevant to AY 2010-11, and thus the loss claimed in AY 2011-12 was incorrect. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, stating that the expenditure was not incurred in the relevant assessment year, referencing the case of Seshasayee Bros. (Travancore) P. Ltd. v. CIT. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the assessee's appeal.2. Addition on Account of Interest and Rent Expenses:The Revenue appealed against the deletion of Rs. 72,11,000/- added by the AO for interest and rent expenses claimed by the assessee. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, referencing a previous ITAT decision in the assessee's favor for AY 2010-11, which verified the payments and found them to be for commercial expediency. The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the Revenue's ground.3. Addition on Account of Compensation Given to Various Parties:The Revenue challenged the deletion of Rs. 2,24,08,048/- added by the AO for compensation paid to various parties. The CIT(A) found the compensation payments to be for business purposes and allowable under Section 37(1) of the Act. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the payments were for business purposes and dismissing the Revenue's ground.4. Addition under Section 14A:The Revenue appealed against the deletion of Rs. 1,29,458/- added by the AO under Section 14A. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, referencing the ITAT's decision in the assessee's favor for AY 2010-11 and the Jurisdictional High Court's decision in Cheminvest Ltd., which held that no disallowance can be made if no exempt income is earned. The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the Revenue's ground.Conclusion:Both the assessee's appeal and the Revenue's appeal were dismissed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions on all issues, finding no infirmity in the orders. Order pronounced on 09/08/2023.