2014 (3) TMI 25

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ts own. 3. The grounds of appeal taken before us read as under :- "1. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.11,23,263/- made by the A.O. without considering the fact that these commission expenses are bogus and fictitious and could not be fully substantiated by the assessee. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has further erred in deleting the addition of Rs.16,87,432/- on account of S.T.G.C. without considering the fact that the assessee could not file full details of transaction of Rs.16,87,432/- which was directly paid by the buyer to the builder M/s DLF Universal Ltd. instead of routing it through the assessee." 4. In the ground no.1, the issue involved is deleting the addition of Rs.11,23,263/- regarding commission expens....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pt Shri Praveen Kumar and Sh. Vijay Raina who had accepted to receive the rebate which was adjusted against the capital cost of the property purchased by them. I find that the AO has merely based his arguments on nomenclature and not on the basis of relevant facts in order to allow commission expenses on the basis of their commercial expediency. In any case, I also find that the appellant had clearly shown these expenses under the head "commission/rebate/incentive" and hence, observations of the AO were not correct. Further, regarding Shri Shailender Choudhary, Mrs. Asha Nath and M/s Tiger Softech, the AO observed that the letters sent to them returned back by the postal authorities with the remarks "these persons have either left these pla....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he addition of Rs.16,87,432/- on account of short term capital gain. The CIT (A) has deleted the addition by holding as under :- "Since, the appellant had paid to the builder i.e. M/s DLF Universal Ltd., an amount of Rs.4812568/- till 5.5.2006 when the receipt was issued, the balance amount of Rs.16,01,432/- was directly paid by the buyer to the builder M/s DLF Universal Ltd. instead of routing it through the appellant. The balance installments were also to be paid by the buyer directly to the said builder i.e. M/s DLF Universal. Since, the payment of Rs.1601432/- paid to the builder directly was only one form of payment of installment by the appellant either the same should have been added in the cost of acquisition and also in the sale....