2020 (11) TMI 825

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Gupta, Sr. DR ORDER PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A)-9, New Delhi dated 17.06.2019 for the Assessment Year 2016-17, wherein, the disallowances made by the ld ACIT, Circle-26(1), Delhi of Rs. 355999/- as per assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 16.12.2018 is upheld. The assessee aggrieved with the order ha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....found that the assessee has paid an amount of Rs. 355999/- on account of flat forfeiture. The assessee was questioned, explanation was obtained however, and same was rejected. The ld AO was of the view that this amount is not in the nature of revenue expenses as these are in nature of advance made therefore, cannot be allowed u/s 37 of the Act. It was held to be a capital expenditure. 3. These ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t. at the rate of Rs. 7400/- per sq ft. which was paid back since the unit booked in their name already cancelled and amount forfeited. The assessee cancelled the forfeiture of the amount of Rs. 355999/- since the amount already forfeited was already considered as an income and revenue receipt in assessment order 2015-16, the amount now paid out of above income was considered as a revenue expendit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....xed for AY 2015-16, when the same is returned during the current year on booking of the flat, cannot be held to be capital expenditure. When the said sum was received, the revenue taxed as revenue receipt and when the same sum is refunded the revenue treated it as a capital expenditure. Thus blowing hot and cold in the same breath by revenue is not acceptable. Accordingly, reversing the order of t....