ITO, WARD- 9(3), NEW DELHI vs. FORTUNE LAND AND HOUSING PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

by the revenue as under:- 1. “Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on the facts of the case in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,91,62,716/- made by the A.O. on account of the additional compensation of land received by the assessee form HUDA.”

Replying to the above, the learned counsel of assessee drawing our attention towards para 2.1 of first appellate order and submitted that the enhancedd compensation which was received by the appellant from the HUDA was transferred to OIPL in accordance with the collaboration agreement for the purpose of execution of said collaboration. He further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) before granting relief to the assessee examine and verify that the enhanced compensation received by the appellant has been duly offered to tax as income by OILP under the head income of from operations for A.Y. 2014-15 relevant to A.Y. 2015-16 therefore the Ld. CIT(A) was right in granting relief to the assessee.

On careful consideration of above submissions, first of all, from relevant part of first appellate order i.e. para 2.1 we note that the Ld. CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessee with following observations and findings:- 2.1 I have carefully considered the submissions of the appellant, the assessment order and the facts of the case. The appellant has submitted that after it purchased land at Badha village and Hayatpur village near Gurusram in the state of Haryana, it was not possible for the appellant company to develop the said land due to its financial and infrastructure constraints. In this situation another company Orris Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (OIPL) approached appellant company for developing residential colony on the land owned by appellant. Collaboration agreements dated 25.10.2007 and 26.10.2010 were entered between appellant company and OIL and executed with regard to the construction and development of the above land. Perusal of the agreement reveals that the appellant transferred its entire right pertaining to the impugned land irrevocably. This also included the right to receive additional compensation from HUDA. This is clear from clauses 2 and 3 of the above agreement, where it is clear that the appellant has transferred all its right in respect of the land and has given full authority to OIPL. Hence the compensation which was received by appellant from HUDA was also transferred to OIPL in accordance with the collaboration agreement for the purpose of executing the said collaboration. It has been further submitted that the compensation received by appellant has been duly offered to tax as income by OIPL under the head "income from operations" for FY 2014-15 relevant to Ay 2015-16. In view of the fact that the total amount of compensation of Rs. 10,90,99,682/- which included interest of Rs. 3,98,73,933/- on which 50% deduction w/s 57 of the 1.T. Act was allowed to assessee by assessing officer, resulting in total addition of Rs. 6,92.25,7491 under the head "income from other sources" in the hands of appellants Since the entire land rights were transfered by appellant to Orris Inftastructure Prt. Ltd (OIPL) and the compensation thereon was offered to tax by OIPL, assessing officer is directed to delete the addition of Rs. 8,91,62,716/- in the hands of appellant. Hence, these grounds of appeal