TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (5) TMI 629
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a paper book before us. It is submitted by him that the factual findings recorded by the ITAT on the first issue with regard to the disallowance under Section 40 (a)(ia) are incorrect. He submits that the CIT (Appeals) has recorded a factually incorrect finding that the assessee had given discount to the buyers and, in fact, the amount represents payment made to the sub-brokers. During the course of hearing, it was put to the learned sr. standing counsel whether the said contention was raised before the ITAT and whether the questionnaire issued by the Assessing Officer and the reply submitted by the assessee were filed in a paper book before the ITAT. Learned Senior Standing Counsel states that even if the documents/paper....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd March, 2012.? 2. Thereafter another opportunity was granted on 22nd March, 2012 to the appellant to file the affidavit. The affidavit has not been filed till today. In these circumstances, we have to proceed on the basis of the three documents on record, i.e., the assessment order, the first appellate order and the impugned order of the tribunal dated 27.5.2011. 3. The appeal pertains to the assessment year 2007-08. 4. The assessee is a company engaged in the business of real estate. 5. The assessing officer disallowed ?marketing expenses including incentive and discount? of Rs. 1,19,16,142/- under Section 40(a)(ia) on the ground that the assessee should have deducted tax at source under Section 194H o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ereby that the payment was received by some another person whereas the property in question was booked in the name of some different person. If the amount is passed on by the assessee to a person who himself has not booked/ purchased the property in question, it is a clear cut case of sub commission without any doubt.? (emphasis supplied) 7. In the first appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) referred to the explanation of the assessee. The assessee had pointed out that as the assessee was in the business of original bookings of pre-launched projects, the assessee used to underwrite some portions of the projects after furnishing the security. The assessee used to also act as a middleman between the builders and t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) That the payments should have been given in lieu of such services. iii) There should be a principle/ agent relationship. While analyzing the nature of discount or payments made by the appellant to the persons who had originally booked the flats, I find that the recipients in this case have not rendered any service to the appellant. In fact, on the contrary, it is the appellant who helped the persons to book a flat. As the persons who made the original booking has not rendered any service to the assessee hence the discount offered by him cannot be treated as payment of commission. Further there is no principle agent relationship between the assessee and the persons who had done the original booking. As such the provisions....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....deducted and full details , name, address etc. were furnished. The assessing officer, however, held that these persons are closely related family members or the relatives of the Director of the assessee company and the payment has been made to reduce the tax liability of the assessee. Two persons, namely, Ravinder Saund and Noorjahan Saund were living at the same address and probably appeared to be the husband and wife. 12. The CIT(Appeals) deleted the said addition. He observed that Sorabh Chopra and Punita Chopra were not related to the assessee and had been in the business for last many years. They were carrying on business in the name of Ethical Infrastructures Private Limited. Similarly, Ravinder Saund and Noorjahan Saund, hus....