TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 483
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... up the appeal for the A.Y. 2006-07 in ITA 2160/Del/2010. The assessee is in the business of real estate. The grounds of appeal read as under. 1. The order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) is not correct in law and facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting addition of Rs. 1,35,000/- on account of compensation for re-acquiring the rights in plots whereas such expenditure was incurred to earn substantial profits in future by way of repurchasing its own assets. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting addition of Rs. 1,35,000/- on account of compensation for re-acquiring the rights in plots where....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... substantiate the same as agricultural income and voucher of petty expenses of Rs. 45,000/- out of claim of expenses at Rs. 5,00,000/- was produced before AO. In doing so, Learned CIT(A) has not taken recourse to provisions of Rule 46A of Income tax Rules 1962. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding income of Rs. 10,23,006 /- claimed by the assessee as agricultural income whereas it is not the activity of the assessee to plough the fields whereas lands are purchased and treated as stock in trade for construction projects from the initial stage and for which all proceedings and procedures are taken to convert use of land. 8. The appellant craves leave to add, a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not treated the sale transaction as complete. Thus, when no asset is sold by the assessee, the question of reacquiring the same does not arise. The Ld.CIT(A) records that the theory of purchasing something, which the assessee himself is the owner is in itself misconceived. 5.2. We find no infirmity in this finding of the Ld.CIT(A). We uphold the same. Similar expense was allowed by the Ld.CIT(A) for the A.Y. 2005-06 also. Thus, we dismiss ground nos. 2 and 3 of the Revenue. 6. Ground no.4 is on the disallowance of foreign travel expenses, of the wife of the Director. The Ld.CIT(A) observed that the visit of Smt.Kanchan Bhalla, W/o Shri Anil Bhalla was pursuant to an invitation for attending a formal meeting and dinner in connection wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nly, whereas the expenditure incurred is for Rs. 5,00,000/-. The First Appellate Authority gives the factual finding that the assessee has produced the evidences of agricultural income earned by it and the bills for incurring of the expenditure. Further he records that one company by name VTPL, which was earning agricultural income, merged with the assessee company during the A.Y. 2005-06. Statistics from the A.Y. 1992-93 to the A.Y. 2005-06 have been extracted by the Ld.CIT(A), to demonstrate that the assessee has been earning agricultural income for all the earlier A.Ys and that this has been accepted by the Revenue. These factual findings could not be controverted by the Ld.Sr.D.R. Hence we uphold the finding of the First Appellate Autho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....), the appellant was allowed a relief of Rs. 61,72,094/- and addition of Rs. 23,00,038/- was sustained In second appeal filed by the department before appellate tribunal the relief given by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was accepted. 4.3 The assessing officer levied a penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs. 7.49.000/- vide his order dated 30.10.2006 which was calculated on the following additions made to the returned income and finally sustained by the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and Tribunal. 1. Disallowance for depreciation Rs. 1,40,000/- 2. Penalty charges paid by the appellant Rs. 20,00,000/- 4.4 Appellant filed appeal against the order of penalty which ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spect to the disallowance of Rs. 20 lakhs, which is a liability incurred towards, non performance within the stipulated time of a specific Clause in the Memorandum of Understanding. As far as the disallowance of depreciation on foreign car, the First Appellate Authority sustained the penalty. 14. After hearing rival contentions, we hold as follows. 15. The assessee has entered into an agreement dt. 30.9.1996 with M/s Vimco Ltd. As per this agreement, the assessee had to complete acquisition of agricultural land within certain time. As it could not do the same fine/penalty was incurred as per the terms of the Contract. The A.O. disallowed this penalty on the ground that: a) The expenditure has actually not been incurred and he....