TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Decisions: Appeals dismissed, some allowed, issues remanded. Upheld findings, stressed documentation.</h1> <h3>M/s. Janapriya Engineers Syndicate (JV), Hyderabad, M/s. Janapriya Properties Pvt. Ltd and M/s. Engineers Reddy Homes Pvt. Ltd., Versus Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle 2, Hyderabad and Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle 2, Hyderabad and vice-versa</h3> M/s. Janapriya Engineers Syndicate (JV), Hyderabad, M/s. Janapriya Properties Pvt. Ltd and M/s. Engineers Reddy Homes Pvt. Ltd., Versus Dy. Commissioner ... Issues Involved:1. Disallowance of deduction under Section 80IB of the Income Tax Act.2. Disallowance of finance charges.3. Disallowance of direct and indirect expenses.4. Disallowance under Section 40A(3).5. Addition on account of suppression of receipts on sale of flats.6. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia).7. Addition of unexplained expenditure under Section 69C.8. Deemed dividends under Section 2(22)(e).9. Addition towards unproved liabilities.10. Addition towards loan processing charges.11. Addition of 30% of opening work-in-progress.Detailed Analysis:1. Disallowance of Deduction under Section 80IB:The assessee claimed deductions under Section 80IB for the assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim due to non-submission of required documentation and non-completion of the housing project by the stipulated date. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, noting the project was incomplete by the deadline. The Tribunal confirmed that the assessee did not fulfill the primary conditions of Section 80IB, thereby rejecting the appeals.2. Disallowance of Finance Charges:The Assessing Officer disallowed the finance charges under Section 40(ba) since the payments were made to a constituent of the joint venture, which is not deductible. The CIT(A) confirmed this disallowance. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the loan was not availed by the assessee but by a constituent of the JV.3. Disallowance of Direct and Indirect Expenses:For the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09, the Assessing Officer disallowed significant portions of direct and indirect expenses due to lack of evidence. The CIT(A) reduced the disallowance to 10% of the cash component of these expenses. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding the 10% disallowance reasonable. For the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to make a similar 10% disallowance.4. Disallowance under Section 40A(3):For the assessment year 2006-07, the assessee did not contest the disallowance under Section 40A(3), resulting in the rejection of this ground.5. Addition on Account of Suppression of Receipts:The Assessing Officer added suppressed receipts based on seized documents. The CIT(A) upheld this addition, noting that the sale deed was registered within the relevant assessment year. The Tribunal confirmed the addition, emphasizing the assessee's accounting method required recognizing income in the year of registration.6. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia):The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) based on the Special Bench decision in Merilyn Shipping & Transport. The Tribunal remanded the issue to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration in light of the pending High Court decision.7. Addition of Unexplained Expenditure under Section 69C:The Assessing Officer made additions based on seized documents indicating unofficial payments. The CIT(A) deleted these additions, finding the documents to be non-credible and lacking evidentiary value. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting the documents were dumb and lacked corroborative evidence.8. Deemed Dividends under Section 2(22)(e):The Assessing Officer treated inter-corporate deposits as deemed dividends. The CIT(A) deleted the additions, following the Special Bench decision in Bhaumik Colour Lab. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting the assessee was not a shareholder in the lending companies.9. Addition towards Unproved Liabilities:The Assessing Officer added unproved liabilities appearing in the balance sheet. The CIT(A) sustained this addition. The Tribunal, however, deleted the addition, noting the liabilities were opening balances and should have been addressed in the year they arose.10. Addition towards Loan Processing Charges:The Assessing Officer disallowed loan processing charges as the loan was transferred to a joint venture partner. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, noting the loan was not used for the assessee's business purposes.11. Addition of 30% of Opening Work-in-Progress:The Assessing Officer made an addition due to discrepancies in the opening work-in-progress. The CIT(A) sustained this addition, relying on a similar case decision. The Tribunal upheld the addition, agreeing with the CIT(A)'s reasoning.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed several appeals, partly allowed some, and remanded a few issues for reconsideration. The decisions largely upheld the findings of the lower authorities, emphasizing the need for proper documentation and adherence to statutory requirements.
TaxTMI 