https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294117 The Revenue's appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for Assessment Year 2010-11 was allowed by the ITAT. The ITAT found that the payment made to the owner's sister was not established to be for the purpose of business as the Joint Development Agreement (JDA) specified that the owner was responsible for land development expenses. The ITAT concluded that the payment of Rs. 65 lakhs was not a business exigency as the sister was obligated to bear such expenses. Therefore, the ITAT reversed the CIT(A)'s decision and restored that of the Assessing Officer. en-us Thu, 28 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 Mar 2021 09:15:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294117 The Revenue's appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for Assessment Year 2010-11 was allowed by the ITAT. The ITAT found that the payment made to the owner's sister was not established to be for the purpose of business as the Joint Development Agreement (JDA) specified that the owner was responsible for land development expenses. The ITAT concluded that the payment of Rs. 65 lakhs was not a business exigency as the sister was obligated to bear such expenses. Therefore, the ITAT reversed the CIT(A)'s decision and restored that of the Assessing Officer. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 28 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294117