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 upholds CIT(A) decisions on construction costs, lifts, transformers, rebates, and dismisses Revenue's appeal.</h1> <h3>DCIT, Circle-3 (1), Visakhapatnam. Versus M/s. Hillocks Hotels Pvt Ltd. And (Vice-Versa)</h3> DCIT, Circle-3 (1), Visakhapatnam. Versus M/s. Hillocks Hotels Pvt Ltd. And (Vice-Versa) - TMI Issues Involved:1. Relief of Rs. 26,82,067/- towards construction above Terrace B and steel fire escape.2. Relief of Rs. 15,65,500/- towards cost of lifts.3. Relief of Rs. 4,85,391/- towards cost of transformers.4. Rebate of 25% (15% towards difference between CPWD rates and local rates and 10% towards self-supervision).5. Cost of construction incurred by the assessee and the inclusion of capital work in progress.6. Disallowance of Rs. 4,43,02,416/- towards unexplained investment U/s. 69B of the Act.7. Validity of the DVO report submitted beyond the six-month period specified U/s. 142A of the Act.Detailed Analysis:1. Relief of Rs. 26,82,067/- towards construction above Terrace B and steel fire escape:The Ld. CIT(A) granted relief of Rs. 26,82,067/- by holding that the DVO failed to exclude these amounts. The Ld. DR argued that the DVO considered the cost of construction and the assessee did not submit any details. The Ld. AR demonstrated that the expenses were incurred by the lessee and were included in the DVO's valuation report. The Tribunal found merit in the Ld. AR's arguments and upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision, finding no infirmity in the order.2. Relief of Rs. 15,65,500/- towards cost of lifts:The Ld. CIT(A) allowed relief by considering invoices submitted by Kone Elevator India Pvt Ltd. The Ld. DR contended that the bills were not provided to the DVO. However, the Tribunal found that the invoices were available and the Ld. CIT(A) rightly considered them. The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity.3. Relief of Rs. 4,85,391/- towards cost of transformers:The Ld. AR presented an invoice from Esennar Transformers Pvt Ltd for Rs. 5,14,609/-. The Ld. DR argued that the invoice was not presented before the AO or the DVO. The Tribunal found the invoice in the paper book and upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision, finding no infirmity.4. Rebate of 25% (15% towards difference between CPWD rates and local rates and 10% towards self-supervision):The Ld. AR argued that the DVO did not consider the difference between CPWD and local State PWD rates and only allowed 7.5% for self-supervision. The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) correctly observed the difference and allowed a reasonable rebate. The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision, finding no infirmity.5. Cost of construction incurred by the assessee and the inclusion of capital work in progress:The Ld. AR argued that the Ld. AO erred by not considering the cost of construction shown as capital work in progress. The Ld. DR contended that no construction after the period should be considered for valuation. The Tribunal found force in the Ld. AR's argument and upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision to consider the construction activities disclosed in the books of accounts. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the Ld. CIT(A)'s order.6. Disallowance of Rs. 4,43,02,416/- towards unexplained investment U/s. 69B of the Act:The Ld. AR argued that the additions made by the Ld. AO were addressed item by item and recorded in the books of accounts. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the Ld. CIT(A)'s order and upheld the decision, finding no interference required.7. Validity of the DVO report submitted beyond the six-month period specified U/s. 142A of the Act:The Ld. AR argued that the DVO's report was not submitted within six months as specified U/s. 142A of the Act. The Ld. DR countered that the limitation applied from 1/10/2014 and was not applicable for AY 2014-15. The Tribunal agreed with the Ld. DR and found that the limitation did not apply in this case.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection, upholding the Ld. CIT(A)'s decisions on all grounds. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the Ld. CIT(A)'s orders and required no interference.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
