TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1270
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing that this is the "second" round of proceedings in all these four cases before the tribunal in compliance to the hon'ble jurisdictional high court's remand directions in the Revenue's twin tax appeals ITA Nos. 710 & 745/2023, dated 19.09.2024; in both these assessment years, reading as under: "1. The present appeals had come to be admitted on 27 May 2024 on the following question of law: "2.1 Whether the Tribunal is justified in law and on facts in deleting the addition of INR 157.33 crores [ITA 710/2023] and INR 51.6 crores [ITA 745/2023] by taking resort to the finding that the AO has not rejected the books of account, though the AO has thoroughly discussed the issue before making the addition?" 2. In terms of the detailed order passed on that date, we had taken note of the conclusions which had come to be recorded by the Assessing Officer' while framing the order of assessment and which stood reflected in paragraph 17.6 which reads as follows: "17.6 Further, the assessee has shown sundry creditors at Rs. 99,68,32,820/- out of which sale & distribution is appearing at Rs. 188,18,134/-. This amount do not bear the name of the parties to w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ame has been completed by resorting to the completion by other agencies. The increase in the cost of cement and steel cannot be ruled out. The Assessing Officer ultimately held and calculated the difference in POCM based on the budgeted cost and the payments made to EMLL. Nowhere, the method of accounting standard followed by the assessee has been disputed, in fact, no grounds could be brought out by the Assessing Officer to alter the percentage shown by the assessee except the document of estimated cost. The Assessing Officer held that the estimated cost of the project computed by the assessee at Rs. 1597.43 crores was higher by approximately Rs. 270 crores on account of cost of construction computed at Rs. 1027 crores. The AO's conclusion that the total construction cost cannot exceed Rs. 752.35 crores and hence total estimated project cost worked out to Rs. 1322.71 crores against Rs. 1597.43 crores estimated by the assessee cannot be accepted. This reduction in estimated expenditure consequently resulted in working of POCM at 69.32% instead of 57.40%. This resulted in the absolute figure of Rs. 87.97 crores rise in the estimated income of the assessee which is not without an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....parent that the judgment rendered by the Tribunal is rendered perverse and contrary to the record. 5. We accordingly answer the question as posited in the negative and in favour of the Commissioner. The appeal shall consequently stand allowed. The order of the Tribunal dated 26 December 2019 is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter shall in consequence stand remanded to the Tribunal on the aforesaid question for rendering a decision afresh. 6. By way of abundant caution, we clarify that we were constrained to interfere with the ultimate order rendered by the Tribunal solely on the grounds aforementioned. Consequently, all rights and contentions of respective parties on merits are kept open." 3. We further deem it appropriate to observe here that the earlier learned coordinate bench's common order dated 26.12.2019 had restored the aforesaid issue of the assessee's purchases disallowance(s) involving varying sums; back to the Assessing Officer, as under: "2. Since, the issues involved in both the appeals are common, they were heard together and are being disposed off by common order. 3. In ITA No. 1731/Del/2014, the assessee has raised follow....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... received from 23 parties on the ground that- (i) the appellant had exhausted opportunity to file the said confirmations at an earlier stage; (ii) Revenue had no opportunity to examine/rebut the said evidences. 2. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in holding that the disbursement of income as per the revenue sharing agreement with EMLL, was not diversion of income by overriding the title, but application of income. 2.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that in essence, under the arrangement between the parties, the entire project was awarded and executed on the strength of EMLL and EMLL had, in fact, paid 75% of the total consideration to the appellant. 2.2 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not allowing deduction of expenditure incurred towards services obtained from EMLL, at 25% of revenue, actually paid as per the terms agreed between the appellant and EMLL, and instead allowing deduction of cost/expenses incurred by EMLL in providing support to the appellant. 2.3 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in adopting its own method of computing reasonable expenditure that ought to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the strength of EMLL and EMLL had, in fact, paid 75% of the total consideration to the appellant. 3. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not allowing deduction of expenditure incurred towards services obtained from EMLL, at 25% of revenue, actually paid as per the terms agreed between the appellant and EMLL, and instead allowing deduction of cost/expenses incurred by EMLL in providing support to the appellant. 4. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in adopting its own method of computing reasonable expenditure that ought to have been incurred by the appellant in relation to services obtained from EMLL, which is not permissible in law." 7. In ITA No. 914/Del/2017, the assessee has raised following grounds: "1. That the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'CIT(A)') has erred on facts and in law in following the order for assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 and holding that the disbursement of income as per the revenue sharing agreement with M/s Emmar MGF Land Ltd. (hereinafter referred to 'EMLL'), was not diversion of income by overriding the title, but application of inco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the case, the ld. CIT (A) has erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,54,80,690/- under the head "income from other sources & capital gain." 10. In ITA No. 5827/Del/2014, the revenue has raised following grounds: "1. The order of ld. CIT (A) is not correct in law and facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 49,91,82,918/- out of total addition of Rs. 51,60,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of 'Inflated/Bogus Construction Cost'. 3. On that facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT (A) has erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 108,20,56,857/- made by the AO on account of Sham transaction. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT (A) has erred in law in directing the AO to determine the business income of the assessee based on findings for A.Y. 2009-10 and 2010-11. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT (A) has erred in law in directing the AO to treat certain incomes amounting to Rs. 2,08,06,019/- as business income instead of capital gains and income from other sources (interest on Ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....annaBrothers, B276, NehruRoad, NIITFaridabad-121001 55,98,156 - - 55,98,156 7 M/sLinkMarble & GranitiespLtd99, DiamondNest1stFloor, UnitNo.103, BDAMainRoad, Banglore 6,66,97,551 11,92,44,540 46,22,065 19,05,64,156 8 M/SParrywareRocaPvtLtd, 2ndFloorjeevanDeepBuilding10, ParliamentStreet, NewDELHI-110001 35,04,662 70,97,519 1,06,02,181 9 M/S. PG Industry Ltd, C1, Ring Road, Rajouri Garden, NewDelhi-110027 17,11,413 ' . 17,11,413 10 M/SS.KTradindCompanyF-22GroundFloorShahpurJtt, NewDelhi-110049 22,62,294 22,62,294 11 M/SVikrantIspatUdyog, 113/8NavyugMarketFloorGhaziabad-201001 2,51,24,561 5,71,02,883 24,33,824 8,46,61,268 12 M/sA & AModularSystem, 149-150, village, sainsiwalabarotiwala.tehsil, disst, solan-174103 - 11,80,34,068 36,11,647 12,16,45,715 13 M/SC.PaSSOCIATEPvtLtdf-5/209, DDABuildingno.5, 2ndfloor.DistrictCentre, Janakpuri-110058 - 2,22,31,062 2,22,31,062 14 M/SeuroCeramics Ltd, Boston House, Ground Floor, Suren Road, Chakala, Andheri(e)Mumbai - 1,93,'56,645 9,05,972 2,02,62,617 15 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....examined by the Assessing Officer. The ld. AR did not object to the proposal. Hence, the interest of the justice, the matter is being referred to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to conduct enquiries, investigation as deemed fit in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act and take a decision regarding the allowability of this expenditure based on the outcome of the enquiries." 4. It is in this factual backdrop that the Revenue submits that we ought to decide both these instant cross appeals each afresh on all the issues raised therein. Learned senior counsel, on the other hand, invites our attention to hon'ble jurisdiction high court's preceding remand directions that our instant "second" round adjudication is confined to the issue of the assessee's assessment year-wise purchases amounting to Rs. 157.33 crores and 51.6 crores only than that on all the substantive grounds raised herein. 5. We have given out thoughtful consideration to the assessee's and the Revenue's foregoing stands. We are of the considered view that given the fact that their lordship had first framed the sole substantial question regarding the assessee's purchases claims which ....