2016 (12) TMI 1696

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ounds in its appeal, however, the crux of the issue is as follows:- "The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in directing the learned Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs. 2,03,27,768/- made for suppression of sale" 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company engaged in the business of property development filed its return of income for the assessment year 2010-11 on 15.10.2010 admitting loss of Rs. 58,85,493/- which was subsequently revised on 31.03.2011 claiming loss of Rs. 36,09,239/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) was issued to the assessee on 26.08.2011. Subsequently, the assessment was completed by the learned Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ner of Income Tax (Appeals) after deliberating the issue in detail decided the matter in favour of the assessee by observing as under:- "9. I have gone through the facts in issue, arguments advanced by the appellant and material on record. The issue which arise for consideration is as to whether the differential price of 2 flats sold to related party, being sister concern, which have been the price applicable to other projects purchased tantamount suppression of sales. It is on record that the appellant had undertaken commissioning of project 'Auro One' consisting of 19 units where two flats being G3 and F4 were sold at Rs..4,129 and Rs..4,000/- per sq. ft respectively to the sister concern as against other flats which were booke....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppellant was paid to the land owner on 22.7.2006 i.e. within days of having obtained the loan from SAPL. Further details -with regard to the transactions are already discussed in para 8 as averred before the AO as also during the appellate stage and hence not repeated. From the appreciation of the facts as delineated therein, no case is made out to support the argument of the AO that the transaction was sham and was desired to bring down the tax liability of the appellant by its act of selling 2 flats at concessional rate. On the contrary, the appellant has fairly stated that it was purely a commercial consideration towards which it received an advance of Rs. 1.60 crores to meet the expenses towards lands purchased. The concessional price /....