TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (12) TMI 78
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ons of section 2{47[v] of the Act under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 2.1 The learned CIT[A] ought to have appreciated that the although the appellant had entered into the aforesaid MOU dated 15/06/2009 with M/s. Synergia Consultants Pvt. Ltd., none of the conditions mentioned u/s. 2[47][v] of the Act were attracted especially since the MOU was an unregistered document and no possession of the said property was delivered by the appellant to M/s. Synergia Consultants Pvt. Ltd., during the year pursuant to the said unregistered MOU and hence, the provisions of section 2[47][v] of the Act were not applicable to the facts of the appellant's case. 2.2 Without prejudice to the above, the learned C!T[A] ought to have further appreciated that the MOU dated 15/06/2009 was not entered into by the appellant during the year under appeal and consequently, assessment of Capital Gains on the basis of the said agreement presuming that there was transfer during the year under appeal was erroneous and the same ought to have been deleted. 3. The learned CIT[A] is not justified in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 25,000/- invoking the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....andum of Association MOU and Ledger account of Synergy Consultants Pvt. Ltd., depicting the advance received for land amounting to Rs. 3,05,70,826/-. 5. From the details filed in respect of the advance, Ld.AO noted that assessee had entered into MOU on 15/6/2009 with its sister concern being M/s Synergy Consultants Pvt.Ltd., in which assessee is a Director holding 50% share to sell for 4156 sq.ft. built-up area on 1st floor No. 34 Embassy Diamante, Vitthal Mallya road, Bangalore, for consideration of Rs. 4,50,00,000/-. It was also noted by Ld. AO that assessee is the sole and absolute owner of the said property. Ld.AO noted that M/s Synergy Consultants Pvt.Ltd. was operating its business from this premises and was not paying any rent to assessee. Ld.AO accordingly called upon assessee to substantiate as to why capital gains should not be charged as per provisions of section 2(47) read with section 45 of the Act. 6. In response, assessee submitted that, M/s.Synergy Consultants Pvt.Ltd. is occupying the office along with assessee's own business, Synergia Bio Sciences. He also submitted that, the office space is in assessee's possession and is not transferred to the company in a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es of assessee amounting to Rs. 6,38,090/-. Ld.AO also disallowed a sum of Rs. 5,65,218/- that was debited as entertainment and business promotion made through credit cards against which no proof/evidences/vouchers etc were filed. Ld.AO also disallowed travelling expenses for which proof was not available for verifying amounting to Rs. 52,07,186/-. Assessee had failed to establish nexes with business of assessee in regards to persons who travelled along with him against which an expenditure of Rs. 62,258/- was incurred. 9. Ld. AO also made addition of Rs. 2, 10, 443/-under section 14 A of the act as per Rule 8D (2) (iii) of income tax rules. 10. Aggrieved by the additions made by Ld. AO, assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A). In the appeal filed before Ld. CIT (A) assessee did not allege the disallowance of travelling expenses amounting to Rs. 52,07,186/-. 11. Ld.CIT (A) in respect of addition of short term capital gain held that merely because a registered sale deed had not been executed does not change the nature of transaction being one of transfer of capital asset as held in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarka Das Kapoor DR vs CIT reported in 180 CTR 107 (BOM) by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee amounting to Rs. 3,05,70,826/-. Ld.AR submitted that assessee on 15/06/2000 and entered into sale agreement with M/s.Synergy Consultants Pvt.Ltd., according to which, the company advanced interest-free amount of Rs. 3,05,70,826/- till end of 31/03/2012. It was submitted that as per understanding entered into between assessee and the company. The advances received, was against a proposed sale, and therefore provisions of section 2(47)(v) was not attracted to the present facts of the case. Ld.AR submitted that, it does not amount to any transfer as observed by Ld. AO u/s 53A of Transfer of Property Act, as the agreement is not registered and only a token amount was received by assessee in view of the proposed sale. It has been submitted that assessee did not pay tax on the said advances received from M/s Synergy Consultants Pvt. Ltd., as originally it was in the nature of loan and since assessee was not paying any interest it culminated into a proposed sale to M/s Synergy Consultants Pvt. Ltd. 18. In regards to the rent chargeable in the hands of assessee, it was submitted that assessee is using the same office space for purpose of his own business, and hence no notional ren....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation by Ld.CIT(A) that, proposed sale has not been materialised even till December 2018, and therefore the intention of assessee is very clear that, entire exercise of entering into a proposed sale was to circumvent taxability of such income in the hands of assessee, either as capital gains, nor as rent, that would have been payable, had it to be a third-party with whom assessee has an agreement. He thus supported the orders passed by authorities below. 22. We have perused submissions advanced by both sides in light of records placed before us. And decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Balbir Singh Maini(supra) relied by Ld.AR. In present facts, assessee has been submitting that there was a loan transaction amounting to Rs. 3,50,00,000/- between assessee and M/s Synergy Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Subsequently, Rs. 3,50,00,000/- was shown as advance towards purchase of land by an agreement dated 15/06/2009 entered into between assessee and M/s Synergy Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Towards proposed sale of 4156 sft. built up area on the 1st floor of No.34, Embassy Diamanate, Vithal Malya Road (hereinafter referred to as said property). Admitedly, asessee, is also the owner of sai....