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>Construction Firm Appeal Granted: Profit Recomputation Ordered</h1> <h3>Desai Real Estate Developers Versus Income-tax Officer</h3> Desai Real Estate Developers Versus Income-tax Officer - [2010] 3 ITR 439, [2011] 44 SOT 7 (Panaji) (URO) Issues Involved:1. Addition of sale proceeds of flats and extra work done.2. Addition of amount received from Desai Cement Co. Pvt. Ltd. (DCCPL) as contract receipt.3. Addition on account of undervaluation of closing work-in-progress of 'Fatorda project'.4. Addition under section 68 for bogus and infructuous creditors/loans.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Addition of Sale Proceeds of Flats and Extra Work Done:The assessee, a partnership firm engaged in construction, filed a return showing a total income of Rs. 2,37,769. The Assessing Officer (AO) noted that the assessee had shown Rs. 18,12,615 received against the sale of flats and Rs. 3,76,173 for extra work done as advances. The AO found that the projects were substantially completed and possession of flats was handed over to purchasers. The AO added these amounts to the total income, which was confirmed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)). The Tribunal held that the income from the projects accrued in the year of completion and directed the AO to re-compute the profit using a specific method, considering the total consideration of sold flats, value of extra work, and value of unsold flats.2. Addition of Amount Received from DCCPL as Contract Receipt:The AO added Rs. 27,11,203 received from DCCPL, treating it as contract receipt, as the amount was capitalized by DCCPL and depreciation claimed. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's alternative contention that only the profit element of the contract receipt should be taxed, not the entire amount. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow deduction of expenses incurred for executing the contract if the assessee provides necessary evidence and establishes the source of funds.3. Addition on Account of Undervaluation of Closing Work-in-Progress of 'Fatorda Project':The AO added Rs. 18,68,014 for undervaluation of closing work-in-progress of the 'Fatorda project' based on a special audit report. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition. The Tribunal noted that the project was completed during the year under consideration and directed the AO to determine the profit of the project using the method specified. The Tribunal held that this method would account for any undervaluation, making a separate addition unnecessary.4. Addition Under Section 68 for Bogus and Infructuous Creditors/Loans:The AO added Rs. 24,83,453 as bogus creditors/loans under section 68. The CIT(A) directed the AO to re-examine the issue, resulting in a relief of Rs. 15,90,982. The Tribunal noted that Rs. 4,67,655 represented opening balances from earlier years and directed the AO to verify this claim. If verified, the AO was instructed to delete the addition for amounts pertaining to earlier years.Conclusion:The appeal was partly allowed, with specific directions given to the AO for re-computation and verification of certain claims.
TaxTMI 