IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JM &

MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No. 261/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2022-23)

Samir Narain Bhojwani, DCIT-4(2)(1), 1^st Floor, Samir Complex, Room No. 642, 6^th Floor, St. Andrews Road, Bandra (West), Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400050. New Marine Lines, PAN: AABPB9150H Mumbai-400020.

Appellant) : Respondent I.T.A. No. 1022/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2022-23)

ACIT-4(2)(1), S a m ir Narain Bhojwani, Room No. 640, Aayakar Bhavan, 1^st Floor, Samir Complex, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Vs. St. Andrews Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai-400050.

PAN: AABPB9150H Appellant) : Respondent Appellant /Assessee by : Shri Yogesh Thar & Chaitanya Joshi, AR Revenue / Respondent by : Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 09.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 26.06.2025 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM:

These cross appeals by the assessee and the revenue are against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (in short "CIT(A)") under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 18.12.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2022-23. The assessee and revenue raised the following grounds:

ITA No. 261/Mum/2025 – Assessee Ground I: Disallowance of Rs 3,72,00,210 under section 40(a)(ia) being 30% of the payment made under Consent Terms on account of alleged non-

deduction of tax at source under section 194C of the Act

1.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer (AO) in disallowing Rs. 3,72,00,210 under section 40(a)(ia) being 30% of the payment made under Consent Terms on account of alleged non-deduction of tax at source under section 194C of the Act.

1.2 In doing so, the Id. CIT(A), inter-alia, erred in upholding the Id. AO's contention that the payment relates to the contractual obligation allegedly covered u/s. 194C.

1.3 The Appellant prays that the disallowance of Rs 3,72,00210 under section

40(a)(ia) of the Act be deleted.

Ground II: Gains in respect of long term capital assets, computed under section 50 of the Act, have been charged to tax at normal rates instead of being charged to tax at the rates mentioned in section 112 of the Act

2.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in charging to tax gains in respect of long term capital assets, computed under section 50 of the Act, at the normal rates instead of charging them at the rates mentioned under section 112 of the Act.

2.2 The Appellant prays that the AO be directed to charge capital gains computed under section 50, arising on transfer of long term capital assets, at the rates mentioned in section 112 of the Act instead of charging them at the normal rates as has been done by the AO.”

“1. Whether on the facts in the circumstances of the case the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in allowing the claim of Rs.3,88,56,708/- towards expenses incurred in respect of flats/buildings sold in earlier years, on the ground that these were legitimate business expenses necessary for maintenance and statutory compliance?

2. Whether on the facts in the circumstances of the case the Ld.CIT(A) was Justified in deleting the addition of Rs.3,88,56,708/- towards expenses incurred in respect of flats/buildings sold in earlier years despite being it capital in nature after completion of project when revenue had already been recognized from the project?”

2. The assessee before us also filed additional ground which reads as under:

“Additional Ground No. III: Allowability of maintenance expenses of Rs.

92.32.199/-

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the maintenance expenditure of Rs 92,32,199/- be held to be allowable expenditure u/s 37(1) of the Act and the id. AO be accordingly directed to allow the same”

3. The additional grounds raised are pure legal issue, which does not require investigation of new facts. Hence, placing reliance on the judgment of t