AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 932
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....('AY') 2007-08. That order is common to two appeals before the ITAT - one appeal was by Zebian Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. ('ZREPL') (in respect of which the appeal has been filed by the Revenue in this Court) and the other by Zanobi Builders & Constructions Pvt. Ltd. ('ZBCPL'). As noticed by this Court in its order dated 20th October 2015, no appeal has been filed by the Revenue as regards the order of the ITAT in the case of ZBCPL. In fact in the present appeal by the Revenue i.e. ITA No. 257 of 2015 there was a mistake as regards the name of the Respondent and that was permitted to be corrected by the order dated 31st August 2015. The net result is that although the impugned order dated 12th April 2013 of the ITAT is co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT) is that the ITAT has while allowing the appeals of the Assessees relied upon its earlier order dated 5th October 2011 in ITA No. 2361/Del/2011 ITO v. Finian Estates Developers P. Ltd. [2012] 23 taxmann.com 360 (Delhi - Trib.). 6. At the outset it requires to be noticed that against the aforementioned order of the ITAT in ITO v. Finian Estates Developers P. Ltd. although the Revenue did file an appeal in this Court being ITA No. 234 of 2012, the Revenue did not urge a question in that appeal regarding the payment made to VEEPL. The said appeal ITA No. 234 of 2012 filed by the Revenue was dismissed by this Court on 26th August 2015 in terms of the Court's decision dated 15th July 2015 in ITA No. 627 of 2012 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d also obtain licenses from the Director, Town & Country Planning, Chandigarh for developing the land. Subsequently, they were to sell the development rights to DLF for consideration. ZREPL and PBDPL in turn appointed VEEPL as a 'Consolidator' to acquire the land. They entered into separate MoUs with VEEPL for that purpose. The understanding was that payments by way of commission would be made to VEEPL only after it was able to acquire at least 27 acres of land. 10. One of the issues that arose even in the case of Finian Estates Developer (P) Ltd. ('Finian') was the nature of the payments made to VEEPL and whether it is a fee for services rendered which required deduction of tax at source. That question was decided against ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....As already noticed hereinbefore, no appeal was filed by the Revenue in this Court against the decision of the ITAT on the above aspect in the case of Finian. 13. Turning to ITA No. 257 of 2015 filed by the Revenue in the case of ZREPL one of the pleas urged is that although the Consolidator VEEPL was same in both cases, the terms and conditions in the MoU with the 'acquirer' were different. It is submitted that while in the case of Finian the Consolidator invested its own funds for purchasing the land for the 'acquirer' in the present case of ZREPL the acquirer paid from its own funds. However, learned counsel for the Revenue has been unable to show any difference in the actual clauses of the MoU between ZREPL and VEEPL whe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rchase of lands having been inflated by the Assessee by a sum of Rs. 4,20,15,681 being the amount paid to VEEPL. This was disallowed since according to the AO any payment whatsoever made to VEEPL would accrue only when 27 acres of land would be acquired. The AO correspondingly reduced the value of the closing stock by the said sum. When the matter travelled to the CIT (A) by way of PBDPL's appeal, there was an extensive discussion in the order of the CIT (A) with regard to the payment made to VEEPL which was corrected as Rs. 1,24,33,326. It was held that "this amount is related to payment of service charge for effecting consolidation of land and is a revenue expense to (be) separately debited to the Profit & Loss account." The CIT (A)) ....