TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (3) TMI 1304
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lows. "2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 15,75,107/- made by the A.O. on account of interest on Post Dated Cheques paid out of books of accounts." 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows. During assessment proceedings Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee company is one of the group company of BPTP group. The assessee had purchased several tract of land, in the NCR (National Capital Region). The assessee company has made only part payment of sale consideration to the seller at the time of executing sale deed and balance payment is made by way of post dated cheques (PDCs). During the assessment, the A.O. obtained details of such PDCs given at the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sue of PDCs. In the group case an identical/similar order of the CIT(A) was confirmed by the Co-Ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s IAG Promoters and Developers Pvt.Ltd. (supra). The relevant finding of the Hon'ble Co-Ordinate Bench of the Tribunal reads as follows. "5. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and perused relevant material placed before us. At the outset, the ground raised by the Revenue is misconceived because Ld.CIT(A) has not deleted the addition of Rs. 5,06,625/- but has only directed to recalculate the interest. We have carefully gone through the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and also the submissions of both the parties and we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld.CIT(A). After examining the lo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Ld.Counsel for the assessee did not press for ground nos. 1, 2, 3, 3.1, 5 and 6. The surviving grounds namely ground no.4 and 4.1 reads as follows. "4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance u/s 40A(3) in respect of which no deduction was claimed by the appellant. 4.1. That even on merits the disallowance was not justified." 10. Brief facts in relation to the above ground are as follows. The assessee company has made cash payment for acquiring certain land. The total cash payment was Rs. 4,50,000/-. The A.O. invoking the provisions of S.40A(3) of the Act disallowed 20% of Rs. 4,50,000/- amounting to Rs. 90,000/-. 11. The assessee being aggrieved filed the appeal b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the business of development of real estate. What he receives i.e. cost of land and Rs. 35,000 per acre in receipt in its hand for the transfer of development right and the payment for purchase of land is its expenditure. On these facts in my opinion the payment made to land owner is expense in appellants hand and entire receipts including cost of land plus Rs. 35,000 per acre is revenue receipt in its hand. As cost of land is an expenditure in appellant's hand, section 40A(3) is applicable, as the expenditure has been incurred. This expenditure is not claimed explicitly in its P&L a/c as the receipt and payment to the same extent gets squared up to the extent of cost of land. This accounting treatment cannot over ride the true nature of....