AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM
This Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2020-21, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s-23 dated 14.07.2025 having DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1078447553(1), involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
The Revenue proposes the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal:
“1.That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.109,60,65,840/- made u/s 56(2)(x) on account of receipt of immovable property at less than FMV, without appreciating the bogus nature of the transaction and ignoring the binding valuation report u/s 142A.
2.That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in holding that the transaction of receipt of land against alleged trade receivables was genuine and not taxable u/s 56(2)(x), despite absence of registration, absence of e-way bills and non-verifiable sales.
3.That on the facts and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 15,33,00,906/- made u/s 40(a)(i) in respect of commission paid to M/s Alatoobi International Trading LLC without TDS deduction u/s 195.
4.That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that such commission constituted income deemed to accrue or arise in India u/s 9(1)(vii) as "fees for technical services" and hence tax was deductible at source.
5.That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in ignoring the settled legal position that obligation to deduct tax is on the assessee, and mere reliance on "no PE" argument is not sufficient unless a certificate u/s 195(2) is obtained.
6.The appellant craves leave to add, alter or withdraw any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.”
The Revenue’s former substantive ground herein seeks to revive section 56(2)(x) addition amounting to Rs.1,09,60,65,840/-made in assessment order on account of fact that the relevant capital asset(s) had been received on or after 01.04.2017 for a consideration less than the stamp price thereof which has admittedly reversed the lower appellate discussion.
It is in this factual backdrop that the assessee takes us to para 16 at page 14 of the CIT(A)’s lower appellate discussion indicating that the stamp price of the relevant capital asset received at the assessee’s behest was only Rs.53 lakhs whereas the valuation thereof declared was much more than that of Rs.101,981,90,018/-. Meaning thereby that the aforesaid stamp value is already less than the assessee’s declared value; and, therefore, we conclude that section 56(2)(x) would not even get attracted in the facts of the case. We thus uphold the learned CIT(A)’s findings deleting the impugned addition for this precise reason.
The outcome would be hardly any different regarding the Revenue’s latter substantive ground seeking to revive section 40(ai) disallowance of Rs.15,33,00,906/- involving the TDS on the payments made to M/s. Alatoobi International Trading LLC in the nature of commission in export consignments. The Revenue could not take us to even single documentary evidence either indicating the assessee’s aforesaid payee as having permanent establishment “PE” in India under section 9(1)(i) of the Act nor it had rendered any services in India so as to be taxable in India in light of PCIT Vs. Vedanta Ltd. (2022) 146 taxmann.com 34 (SC). We thus uphold the learned CIT(A)’s detailed discussion qua the instant latter issue as well.
No other ground or argument has been pressed before us.
This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.