Search: disallowance

2 results for “disallowance”+ Section 206Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3 Delhi2 Bangalore1 Karnataka1

Key Topics

Section 407 Section 40A(2)(b)2 Addition to Income2

ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-1, NEW DELHI vs. DINESH KUMAR MATHUR, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1016/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Mathur, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 206ASection 260ASection 40

206A r.w. Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AY 2008-09. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee read as under: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition of Rs.3,19,66,460/- made by the Assessing Officer

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. VISHNU APARTMENTS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5828/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2010-11 Acit, Vs Vishnu Apartments Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-7, Sheela Bhawan, New Delhi. 8, Motilal Atal Road, Jaipur. Pan: Aaacv6397E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri I.P. Bansal & Shri Vivek Bansal, Advocates; & Ms Suman Sapra, Ca Revenue By : Shri J.K. Mishra, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14Th August, 2014 Of The Cit(A)-1, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Are As Under:- “1. The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Is Not Correct In Law & Facts. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.47,07,37,143/- Made By The Ao On Account Of ‘Sham Transaction Of Revenue Sharing.’ 3. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend Any/All The Ground Of Appeal Before Or During The Course Of Hearing Of The Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri I.P. Bansal &For Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT, DR

Section 269SSection 40A(2)(b)Section 44A

206A of the Act. There is no provision to deduct tax on sharing of revenue / income on joint project development. Observation of Revenue (4) 11 Since the transaction is between two related entities it is hit by the provisions of section 40A(2)(a). Execution of agreement dated 06.09.2004 is a self serving document and there are no real