TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (2) TMI 569
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0.12.2008. 2. The first issue in this appeal of revenue is against the order of CIT(A) allowing the claim of demurrage charges. For this, revenue has raised following ground no.1: "1.That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by allowing the appeal of the assessee company under the head demurrage charge amounting to Rs.31,00,000/-." 3. We have heard rival submissions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We find that the AO disallowed this demurrage charges claimed at Rs.15 lac and Rs.16 lac being payment on account of cancellation of joint development project of OASIS of Fort Project Pvt. Ltd. According to AO, in view of the correspondence submitted by the assessee this claim of demurrage charges and cancellation ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rage charges in case of termination of the contract time was extended. The assessee paid this sum of Rs.31 lac vide cheque drawn on Standard Chartered Bank on 25.06.2006 but ultimately failed to fulfill the contract and vendor asked for total demurrage charges of Rs.40 lacs but finally demurrage charges were settled at Rs.15 lac and further cancellation of this booking amounting to Rs.16 lacs was forfeited. In view of the correspondence produced before the lower authorities and even now before us, we are of the view that due to cash crunch the assessee has not been able to pay the amount of Rs.1.2 cr. within the stipulated period. During this period there was slump in property deals and as a prudent decision the assessee settled by paying s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../- was paid and it was let out to M/s. R. Piyarilal Import & Export Pvt. Ltd. for the gross composite receipts of Rs.16,85,400/-. The security staff and maintenance staff worked in three shifts and were paid Rs.4,000/- per month for which details and evidences were produced before the Assessing Officer which is evident from the assessment order itself. And these persons could not be produced before assessing officer since they have left long back. Keeping in view above circumstances, the addition of Rs.7,53,970/- is deleted. Therefore, ground no.2 is allowed." 7. We find that the assessee has maintained the security staff to maintain its warehouse and debited the expenditure in the operating expenses. Further, it has incurred warehouse mai....