2012 (8) TMI 584

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ome-tax Act, 1961. 2. The assessee is running a hotel business. In the previous year relevant to the assessment year under appeal, the assessee has constructed a hotel building at Tiruvannamali. The cost of construction declared by the assessee is Rs. 1,33,10,465/-. The cost of construction was referred to Departmental Valuation Officer(DVO). The DVO estimated the cost of building at Rs.2,03,00,435/-. This has been adopted by the Assessing Officer. The Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) granted certain deductions from the above valuation and made a revised estimate of cost of construction at Rs. 1,58,35,029/-. The Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) has suggested an addition of Rs. 25,34,289/-. 3. It is against the above finding o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e CIT(A) order in 160/07-08 dt. 10.7.2008 on the issues on which the present Miscellaneous Petition is decided. Whereas, the misc. petition of the appellant has been dismissed by the Honourable ITAT, Chennai Bench. 2.4 The ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that both the appellate proceedings before Honourable ITAT and ld. CIT(A) were proceeded during the same period, while the Honourable ITAT dismissed the misc. petition of appellant, the ld. CIT(A) erred in admitting and allowing relief on the misc. petition with common issues, is bad in law and is not maintainable also." 5. On the other hand, the assessee has raised the following grounds : "The appellant objects to the determination of cost of construction at Rs. 15835029, the cons....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eading contractor. 6. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in sustaining the VO's estimate of Rs. 199024 (1%) towards Municipal licenses ignoring the actual receipts produced. 7. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in arbitrarily restricting the reduction on account of Direct purchase of material to 3% as against 6% recommended even by the VO. 8. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in allowing a reduction of only 15% towards difference between CPWD and State PWD rates as against 25% allowed by the Madras ITAT in another case. 9. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in upholding the levy of interests u/s 234A & 234B, on the only ground that they are mandatory." 6. We heard both sides in detail. On going throu....