Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Brokerage payment deduction allowed in capital gains computation despite missing broker signatures on registered sale document</h1> <h3>Shri Ashok Singh Versus ACIT, Circle-3, Jaipur</h3> The ITAT Jaipur allowed the assessee's claim for brokerage payment deduction in capital gains computation. The AO had disallowed the brokerage payment ... Computation of capital gain - Disallowance of Brokerage Payment paid in respect of sale of land - addition made on the ground that none of the person to whom brokerage payment had been claimed to have been made had signed at any place in the registered sale document or initial sale agreement - HELD THAT:- From the record, it is noted that the assessee had submitted the copy of ID Proof i.e. Aadhar Card showing name and address of the above 05 persons. It is also noted that the assessee had submitted the payment voucher and signed receipt of brokerage payment. The Bench feels that there is no requirement of getting signature or putting the name of signature of the broker which is not part and parcel of the agreement and it is nowhere indicated in the registry about the name of the broker. We also find that the assessee had entered into agreement of land on 25-03-2023 but claimed payment of brokerage on 22-06-2015. To this effect, the Bench noted arguments of the ld. AR of the assessee wherein he prayed that the brokerage is paid only after complete receipt of sales consideration or after the date of registry. In this case, it is noted that the sale agreement was entered on 25-03- 2013 (PB No. 43-47) on receipt of payment advance of Rs. 5.00 lacs. However it was decided by the parties that complete payment would be paid within 3 years and thus thereafter the registered sale deed got executed on 22-06-2023 which is registered before the Registering Authority and thus the brokerage was paid by the assessee on completion of the job. Thus no justification in the orders of the lower authorities to make disallowance as it is a mutual agreement between the purchaser and broker to get the deal done. It is also noteworthy to mention from the affidavit of the assessee Shri Ashok Singh that he had paid brokerage in cash to the above mentioned five persons. Hence, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the brokerage amount is allowed. Issues Involved:1. Disallowance of Brokerage Payment of Rs. 9,78,500/- in respect of sale of land.Summary:Issue 1: Disallowance of Brokerage Payment of Rs. 9,78,500/-The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) confirming the AO's disallowance of brokerage payment amounting to Rs. 9,78,500/-. The AO observed discrepancies in the brokerage payment, such as the absence of broker signatures in the sale agreement, payments made in cash, and the sale agreement being signed by the assessee who was also the director of the purchasing company. The AO concluded that the brokerage payment was an afterthought to reduce tax liability and lacked independent evidence, resulting in the addition of Rs. 9,78,500/- to the assessee's income.In the first appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the AO's disallowance, noting that the brokerage payments were made in cash and the receipts were dated inconsistently. The CIT(A) agreed with the AO that the assessee's claim lacked strong independent evidence and appeared to be an attempt to reduce tax liability.The assessee argued that the brokerage payments were genuine, providing ID proofs of the brokers, payment vouchers, and signed receipts. The assessee explained that brokerage is typically paid after the complete receipt of sales consideration, which was the case here. The assessee further clarified that he became a director of the purchasing company to safeguard against potential fraud, and the discrepancy in the date of brokerage receipts was a typographical error.The Tribunal examined the evidence, including affidavits from the assessee and the brokers, and found no requirement for broker signatures in the sale agreement. The Tribunal noted that the brokerage payment was made upon completion of the sale and supported by affidavits. The Tribunal concluded that the brokerage payment was justified and allowed the appeal, deleting the disallowance of Rs. 9,78,500/-.Conclusion: The appeal of the assessee is allowed, and the disallowance of brokerage payment of Rs. 9,78,500/- is deleted.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found