TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 473
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at deal of time to devote. It was revealed from the balance sheet that assessee has invested in inter alia urban plots and flats, at various agricultural lands namely Khasra No.110, 141/2, 681, Mubarikpur 1 and 2 and Land at Greater Noida. The A.O, therefore, noted that assessee does not have time to undertake agricultural activities on these scattered lands. The same will follow suit in the case of acquired lands at Gram Jaganpur, District Gautam Budh Nagar, which was purchased by assessee on 16th April, 2004 and in the Purchase Deed, it is mentioned that land sold does not have any tube-well, boring, trees or standing crops. The A.O, therefore, required the assessee to prove with evidence that the impugned land was used for agricultural purposes by him during the period of two years immediately prior to the date of transfer/acquisition. The assessee explained that land was used for the purpose of agriculture for self-consumption, for which, no details were filed. The A.O, therefore, noted that assessee has not undertaken any agricultural activity on the said land, therefore, assessee will be deprived of the claim of exemption under section 10(37) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Madras High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs., Mansi Finance Chennai Limited 73 taxmann.com 312 (Mad.) in which as per Revenue records the land was used for agricultural purposes. On the basis of the evidence and material and record, the claim of assessee has been allowed. He has also relied upon the order of ITAT, Hyderabad Bench in the case of CIT vs., N. Raghu Varma (2013) 142 ITD 421 (Hyd-Tribu.). 7. After considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that no interference is called for in the matter. It is not in dispute that the assessee received the compensation of the impugned amount on compulsory acquisition of urban agricultural land. The assessee claimed the same amount as exempt under section 10(37) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee filed copy of the sale deed which clearly described the impugned land to be agricultural land and used for agricultural purposes. At appellate stage, as per directions of the Ld. CIT(A), Certificate of Tehsildar was filed who has certified that at the time of acquisition of the land, the land was used for agricultural purposes. The assessee also produced Revenue record to show that land in question was used for agricultural purp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... increased by over Rs. 23 crores. The bills of Commission Agents have given details of tonnage and rate of commission is mentioned. It was submitted that rate of commission is far more lesser than the gross profit ratio which is over 4%. Commission is only @ 5%. The commission was paid since last many years which have been accepted. The comparative details of earlier year was also filed. The final book results could be verified from the assessment order for preceding A.Y. 2009-2010, in which, assessee similarly explained the issue. Besides all the parties are identified and they worked for assessee and paid the taxes on the income. Many case laws were relied upon. The Ld. CIT(A) noted that claim of commission is fully supported by comparative chart of earlier year, payment of TDS, is not doubted and rate of commission is uniform and even the sales have substantially increased and the Agents also disclosed their Commission income in their return of income. None of the parties are related. Genuineness of the payment is not doubted. The A.O. only disallowed part payment. Therefore, there was no justification to make the addition. The Ld. CIT(A), accordingly, deleted the addition. 10.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 36,02,822/- on account of shortage in stock as found by RINL. The A.O. noted that assessee is saddled with the consignment work as Agent (Handling Contractor) of RINL. During the year, on physical verification of stocks lying in the custody of the assessee by Principal-RINL, it was found that stock worth Rs. 36,02,822/- was lying short vis-a-vis total stock handedover to the assessee. It was obligatory for the assessee to safeguard the property of principal from any pilferage, damage or loss, for which, it is paid handling charges. It was noted that RINL deducted the above amount from the monthly handling bills of the assessee as stock was found short during physical verification. The assessee claimed the about shortage as expenses. The assessee explained that all the control over material receipts and issues are in the hands of RINL. The material receipt Note are received and signed by staff and officials of RINL and all dispatch slips are issued, passed and signed by the staff and officials of the RINL. The A.O, however, did not accept the same because no FIR or Complaint have been lodged and that the work has to be done by the assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Railway Wagons at Ghaziabad and then to take the material in his stock yard where the same is stacked. The staff of the RINL is posted in the stock yard from where sales are made by staff of RINL and material is dispatched to the parties by the staff of the principal. Against providing stock yard for staff/material and services of transportation etc., the assessee gets handling charges and in the same process, for the shortage of the material, it was detected from the final bill. The shortage occurred on day to-day basis and such shortage are debited by RINL on estimate basis. Since it is a business routine and normal shortage, therefore, claim of assessee was allowed. The Ld. CIT(A) also noted that there is opening balance under the same head which supports the explanation of assessee that it was a routine shortage. Ld. CIT(A), accordingly, deleted the addition. 15. The Ld. D.R. submitted that shortage is abnormal. It cannot continue for many years. 16. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the Assessee, reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and submitted that amount in question is not debited to the profit and loss account, therefore, the same cannot be....