TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 69
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ounds are dismissed as not pressed. Regarding ground No. 4 & 5 the Ld. AR submitted that these grounds involve two issues namely additional payments made by assessee for purchase of land not allowed by AO and further disallowance of payment u/s 40A(3) of the Act. The Ld. AR submitted that similar issues in the case of group company namely Westland Developers Pvt. Ltd. was decided by Hon'ble Tribunal vide its order dated 22nd August, 2014 and in this respect regarding the issue of disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Act Ld. AR invited our attention to para 10.10 of the said order and regarding the issue of additional payments Ld. AR invited our attention to para 13 of the said order. Ld. AR submitted that facts and circumstances in the present ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....10.10 has held as under :- "10.10. We have also taken ourselves through the judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Industrial Engineering Projects Pvt. Ltd. (cited supra) which has been relied upon before us for the proposition that reimbursement of expenses cannot be treated to be a Revenue receipt. How the judgment of the Apex Court in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers is applicable to the facts of the present case has not been set out in the order of the authorities nor has the Ld. DR been able to address the applicability of the said judgment to the issue at hand. We have taken ourselves through the said judgment and seen that it proceeds on entirety different facts and circumstances and has no applicab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t have been disallowed and in the alternative ground No. 4.1 the assessee has raised the ground that the recipients of additional payments were not owners of land. We find that this issue of additional payments has also been raised by revenue in its appeal which the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Westland Developers Pvt. Ltd. has decided in favour of asseseee and therefore ground No. 4 and 4.1 has become infructuous and therefore dismissed. In view of the above the appeal filed by the assesssee is partly allowed. 5. Now coming to the appeal filed by the revenue. The revenue is aggrieved by the action of Ld. CIT(A) by which he had deleted an addition of Rs. 22,85,969/- made by the AO on account of interest on Post Dated Cheques alleged to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ure disallowed U/S 40A(3) is not so material as the finding is arrived at taking cognizance of the material fact that herein also no such claim of expenditure has been made. The fact that the additional payments were warranted in order to avoid potential disputes amongst the claimants of the land holding which have been passed through to the land holders from generation to generation wherein there may be informal arrangements of ownership and or the payments were for commercial expediency to facilitate peaceful possession and registration of the land holding; where by the time Registry was made the Iandholders felt a higher payment was necessitated due to increase in value are issues which are not required to be endorsed in the present proc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his was the interest calculated @ 15% p.m. on PDCs from the date of issue (sale deed) to the date of encashment. We find that CIT(A) held in para 5.4 at page 17 of his order that "If it is not possible to work out the extension of PDCs in each case then A. O. is directed to recomputed interest on P DCs after six months from date of issue of PDCs i.e. date of sale, as six months is taken as reasonable period for giving PDC as per sale deed". Ld. Counsel of the assessee further submitted that since the PDCs were encashed in less than six months from the date of issue, entire interest of Rs. 26,69,785/- was deleted in pursuance to the order of CIT( A). Copy of appeal effect by way of revised Tax Computation is enclosed at page 98-99 of the PR.....