TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 334
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,81,497/- to the income of the appellant on account of incentive from property broker on original booking of a residential flat in a Developers project. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the plea that the appellant booked the flat with a view to reduce her cost of acquisition and that there was no relationship of Principal & Agent between the broker and the appellant. The appellant did not render any service to the broker in order to earn any income. Direct incentive offered and accepted by the appellant was only with a view to minimize the cost. 4. That each ground of appeal is without prejudice to one another. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he I.T. Act, 1961. 3. Against the assessment order, assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide his impugned order dated 15.6.2016 has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Now the Assessee is aggrieved against the impugned order and filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Ld. Counsel of the Assessee has stated that as per the Income Tax Act only the income is to be taxed in the hands of the recipient in whose hands the nature of income is to be decided. It was also stated that in the case of the assessee the income received by her is not a revenue receipt. The very source of her receipt is only the residential flat which is a capital receipt in nature. Therefore, Ld. Counsel of the assesssee stated that the issue involv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ave heard both the parties and gone through the facts of the case as also the aforesaid decisions relied upon. Indisputably, the payment of Rs. 51,37,584/- was made to persons by a/c payee cheques as per details placed on page 9 to 33 of the Paper Book, who booked flats in various projects of different builders. The Ld. CIT(A) found that these persons did not render any service to the assessee and therefore, discount offered by the assessee could not be treated as commission nor was there any principal-agent relationship between the assessee and these persons. In these circumstances, the Ld. CIT(A) concluded that the provisions of section 194H could not be invoked. The Ld. AR pointed out that in similar circumstances, a coordinate Bench in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t Appellate Authority has appreciated the controversy in right perspective and we do not see any person to interfere in his order." 5.1 On appeal by the Revenue, the Hon'ble High Court upheld the findings of the ITAT in the following terms:- "10. We do not think that the aforesaid findings are perverse or require any interference in exercise of our jurisdiction uls 260Aof the Act. The factual finding as recorded by the first appellate authority and the Tribunal is that the payments were made by the purchasers who had booked plots/flats. While making payment, discounted price was paid by the buyers. In these circumstances, we do not think that section 194H of the Act can be invoked. Therefore, no substantial question of law arises o....