The Commissioner of Income-tax-I, Hyderabad v. Abhinandana Housing Pvt. Ltd - 2014-LL-1126-114

Citation	2014-LL-1126-114
Appellant Name	The Commissioner of Income-tax-I, Hyderabad
Respondent Name	Abhinandana Housing Pvt. Ltd.
Court	HIGH COURT OF HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Relevant Act	Income-tax
Date of Order	26/11/2014
Assessment Year	2009-10
Judgment	View Judgment
Keyword Tags	purchase of land • payment in cash
Bot Summary:	Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Tribunal is perverse 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the assessee s case falls under the purview of clause of Rule 6DD of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, without appreciating the requirement to make payment in cash by agents, for purchase of land on behalf of the assessee, has not been established The question is whether the engagement of a third party in connection with the business by the assessee is that of an agency as required under Rule 6-DD(k) of the Income Tax Rules. The admitted position is that a third party acted agents of various persons. The learned Tribunal, in our considered view correctly, concluded that there is no requirement of law that an agent must be exclusively of one principal. A broker can be an agent because the broker might be dealing with a large number of customers but the element of agency is there. Deduction under Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act was rightly allowed by the Tribunal. According to us, no decision is required to be rendered in this matter on point of law.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR STATE OF TELANGANA AND STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH PRESENT HON BLE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND HON BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. NO.669 OF 2014 DATED:26.11.2014 Between: Commissioner of Income Tax-I Hyderabad Appellant And M/s. Abhinandana Housing Pvt. Ltd., III Floor, N.V. Plaza, Saibaba Temple Street Dwarakapuri Colony Panjagutta Hyderabad Respondent HON BLE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND HON BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. NO.669 OF 2014 JUDGMENT: (per Hon ble Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is sought to be preferred against judgment and order of learned Tribunal, dt.12.2.2014, in relation to assessment year 2009-2010, on following suggested questions of law: 1. Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, order of Tribunal is perverse? 2. Whether on facts and circumstances of case, Tribunal is correct in law in holding that assessee s case falls under purview of clause (k) of Rule 6DD of Income Tax Rules, 1962, without appreciating requirement to make payment in cash by agents, for purchase of land on behalf of assessee, has not been established? question is whether engagement of third party in connection with business by assessee is that of agency as required under Rule 6-DD(k) of Income Tax Rules. admitted position is that third party acted agents of various persons. learned Tribunal, in our considered view correctly, concluded that there is no requirement of law that agent must be exclusively of one principal. broker can be agent because broker might be dealing with large number of customers but element of agency is there. Therefore, deduction under Section 40A(3) of Income Tax Act was rightly allowed by Tribunal. According to us, no decision is required to be rendered in this matter on point of law. appeal is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ 26.11.2014 SANJAY KUMAR, J bnr Commissioner of Income-tax-I, Hyderabad v. Abhinandana Housing Pvt. Ltd

Metadata

Judgment