Full Text
S'-' ■
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
17.
PR.COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX-6 Appellant
Through: Mr Rahul Chaudhary, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr Ruchir Bhatia, Junior Standing
Counsel.
PR.COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX-6 Appellant
Through: Mr Rahul Chaudhary, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr Ruchir Bhatia, Junior Standing
Counsel.
08.12.2015 CM No.29951/2015 in ITA No.930/2015
ORDER
1. Allowed,subjectto alljust exceptions. ITA 928/2015 ^ 2015:DHC:11759-DB
2. The application stands disposed of. ITA Nos.928 and 930 of2015
3. These appeals bythe Revenue are directed againstthecommon order20^*" May,2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(TTAT')in ITA Nos.4351 and 3577/Del/2012 for the Assessment Years ('AYs') 2006-07 and 2007-08 respectively.
4. These appeals by the Revenue relating to a development agreement entered into by the Assessee with Vikram Electric Equipment (P) Ltd. (VEEPL)for development ofthe land for ultimate sale to the DLF Group, are similar to other appeals ofthe Revenue arising out ofsimilar facts. This Court has by its decision dated 5^^ November, 2015 in ITA No.257/2015 {Commissioner ofIncome Tctx-IV v. Zebian Estate P. Ltd.) and ITA No.270/2015 {Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-7 v. Penthea BuildersAndDevelopersPvt.Ltd.)affirmed the orders oftheITAT in those appeals. In turn,that order refers to the earlier decision oftheITAT inITO
V. Finian EstatesDevelopers(P)Ltd.(2012)23taxmann.com 360(Delhi-
Trib.) which was affirmed by this Court while dismissing the Revenue's appeali.e.ITANo.234/2012on 26'^ August,2015. ITA 928/2015 2of[3]
5. Learned counsel for the Revenue sought to urge that the present appeals stand on a different footing on account ofa statement made initially by the Assessee that the development agreement in question was entered into with one Mr Mast Ram. Later, in the course ofthe assessment proceedings,the Assessee disclosed that it was in fact entered into with VEEPL.
6. In the considered view ofthis Court,that single factor would not make a difference to the outcome of the appeals. Apart from the fact that the relevant clauses ofthe development agreement with VEEPL in these cases are more or less similar, an additional factor in the present case is that VEEPL disclosed its complete books of accounts before the Assessing Officer and this substantiated the case ofthe Respondent Assessee.
7. Consequently,the Court is not persuaded to take a different view ofthe matter as far as these appeals are concerned. No substantial question oflaw arises. The appeals are dismissed.
S.MURALIDHAR,J VIBHUBAKHRU,J DECEMBER 8,2015/MK