Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

i. During the A.Y. 2009-10 all the activities/ transactions such as signing of the development agreement, termination of the agreement and sale of the land to the others persons happened in same financial year i.e. 2008-09 corresponding to A.Y. 2009- 10 whereas in the year under consideration the signing of the development agreement was done in the assessment year2007-

08, termination of the agreement was done in the assessment year 2011-12 and the compensation received by the assessee was in the assessment year 2012-13 i.e. the year under consideration.

- 12 -
"12. Thus, I am of the considered view that as rightly pointed out by the A.O in his remand report, there seems to be a distinct modus operandi emerging out of these arrangements. The appellant itself had given funds to the societies to buy the land. Its own share holders, related parties are the members of the managing committee or the society. This fact was never disclosed either during the assessment or remand or appellate proceedings. Then the appellant entered into Development Agreement with eight societies or persons and received large sums in lieu of right to sue after the Development Agreements are terminated by the societies and land is sold to the third party. The year in which the termination agreement took place, the share holders or the related parties were no more the member of the society or the managing committee. The final buyers or the third parties are none other than the CMD, Director, shareholders or the related parties of the appellant company. An artificial scenario of 'dispute' is created resulting into termination agreement and payment of compensation. The glaring contradictions in the final sale document and the development/termination agreements cannot be ignored. On the contrary, the real grievance lies with the societies/vendors for non performance or breach of the contract by the appellant. They have the right to sue the appellant. However, the facade created by the appellant has resulted into a large chunk of fund remaining within the 'Popular Group' as mentioned earlier and the appellant taking the shield of capital receipt argument to avoid payment of taxes. One has to look beyond what is not apparent. This has happened not only in this year but as mentioned, in earlier years as well the appellant has entered into similar set of agreements to claim capital receipts and avoid payment of taxes. In three years i.e. AY 2009-10, AY 2012-13 & AY 2015-16 the appellant has claimed capital receipt of approx. Rs. 41 crores as non taxable. Hon'ble ITAT has given the relief to the appellant for AY 2009-10 as discussed earlier. The Hon'ble ITAT for AY 2009-10, and the AO has rightly pointed out that the main object of the appellant is to develop property and transact into real estate. It has been proved again and again by the appellant by its conduct of business that repeatedly the appellant has undertaken the transactions of land deals right from A.Y.2007-08 onwards. As such transactions are part and parcel of the business and profession of the appellant, the income arising from the conduct of such business and profession will have to be taxed under the head income from business and profession. Therefore, I agree with the A.O that the receipt of Rs.18,02,53,000/- shall be taxed under the head income from business and profession. Accordingly, the addition made by the A.O amounting to Rs. 18,02,53,000/- under the head income from business and profession is hereby confirmed. The ground of appeal is hereby dismissed."

I. In the assessment year 2009-10 all the activities i.e. the development, termination agreement and the sale of the property were happened within the same financial year i.e. 2008-09 whereas it was not so for the year under consideration.

9.1. On perusal of the above reason, we find that the character of the transaction for receiving the compensation will not change merely on the ground that the development agreement, termination of agreement and the sale of the property happen in different financial years. It is because Popular Estate Management Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year - 2012-13

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 7.15... ... Thus, right from the societies till the final recipient of funds from the societies to the appellant, it is only the 'Popular' group and its concerns including related parties or shareholders that have remained the recipient and the real beneficiaries of these land transactions. Thus, the development agreement and termination agreement appear to be a façade to avoid payment of taxes. This web of agreements was merely a façade created to show to the revenue authorities that the funds received are in the form of capital receipts and avoid payment of taxes."