2015 (10) TMI 87

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....deration. "1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in confirming the orders of the CIT(A), who deleted the addition being interest of Rs. 57,82,000/paid, Rs. 12,00,000/being brokerage paid and Rs. 10,00,000/being loans taken from certain others, whereas these additions were made by the AO on the basis of impounded documents? 2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in upholding the decision of the CIT(A), who deleted the addition of Rs. 12,65,000/being an amount paid to a certain 'VT' whereas the addition was made on the basis of documents impounded during the survey on which a narration was made 'paid to VT ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Rs. 2.05 lakhs aggregating to Rs. 57.82 lakhs. The brokerage charges for completion of the land deal of Rs. 12 lakhs was paid to Durga Estate. This was to be borne by the vendor i.e. M/s Shakti. However, as the respondent had paid the same after deducting the tax, M/s Shakti who were responsible for payment gave credit for the same to the respondent leading to a fall in consideration payable to M/s Shakti. Similarly, a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs had been paid to the vendor-M/ s Shakti before finalization of the land deal and same had not yet been repaid by the vendor-M/ s Shakti. Consequently the above amount of Rs. 10 lakhs was also reduced from the consideration payable for the land deal. 5. The Assessing Officer did not accept the above sub....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....discharged by the respondent-assessee and the amounts were thus reduced from the cost of the land. Similarly, Rs. 10 lakhs which has been paid by the respondent-assessee to the vendor had been reduced from the cost as the vendor has failed to repay the amount. The aforesaid facts were also confirmed by the vendor in his letter dated 26 February 2002 filed along with the bank statement. In these facts, the impugned order of the Tribunal did not disturb the factual findings arrived at by the CIT(A). 8. Mr. Arvind Pinto, the learned Counsel for the revenue reiterated the findings arrived at by the Assessing Officer. We find that both the CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal have reached the concurrent finding of fact that the amount of Rs. 57.82 ....