TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (10) TMI 317
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of Rs.19,49,850/- on a/c of building maintenance charges. (iv) Addition of Rs. 6,64,038/- on account of water and electricity charges. (v) Addition of Rs. 3,61,480/- on a/c of share register expense. (vi) Addition of Rs. 81,65,658/- on a/c of interest payment. 2. Ld. DR relied on the order of Assessing Officer. 3. Learned counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, contends that the assessee consistently follows 'Project Completion Method of Accounting', which is accepted by income-tax department since A.Y. 1977-78, accordingly return declaring loss of Rs. 3,24,03,609/- was filed. 3.1. Apropos first issue, Assessing Officer erroneously held that the appellant is not following percentage completion method. The assessee c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....02-03 or more than that. The Assessing Officer has not brought on record any evidence to suggest that sale price realized by the appellant was more than what has been disclosed by it. In the absence of any evidence, the disallowance of loss made by Assessing Officer cannot be sustained. With regard to the remarks of the Assessing Officer that the assessee is not following "percentage completion method", in my considered opinion, this is no ground/ reason for making the disallowance. The case law relied upon by A.O. are distinguished. In facts. These cases were of contractors doing construction works for others whereas the case of the appellant is that of a dealer/ developers of owned properties and making the sales. The revenue recognition ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llant had taken loans in the earlier years and paid processing charges to bank. The appellant has claimed the processing charges over the period for which sanction of the loan was effective. Out of Rs. 15,79,358/- claimed as deduction during the year, sum of Rs. 11,75,215/- was out of prepaid expenses as on 31-3-2002 and balance amount of Rs. 4,04,143/- was incurred during the year on account of rollover charges for reschedulement of loans after giving credit/ incentive for early repayment of some loan. The expenses pertaining to the period upto 31-03-2002 i.e. Rs. 8,20,072/- claimed in A.Y. 2002-03 were duly allowed in the assessment made u/s 143(3). There appears to be no reason/ logic for sustaining the disallowance made by the A.O. It i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....led discussion held that rental income was to be assessed as business income and accordingly disallowance of expenses could not be made. Thereafter the ITAT also decided the issue in favour of the assessee company. For the year under consideration, the issue stands covered in favour of the appellant by the order of CIT(A) and ITAT for A.Y. 2002-03. Even for a subsequent year A.Y. 2006-07, the Ld. CIT(A)-VIII New Delhi has decided the issue in favour of the assessee company. Therefore, respectfully following the said orders, the disallowance of Rs. 19,49,850/- and Rs. 6,64,038/- made by the Assessing Officer are deleted. These grounds of appeal are allowed." 3.6. Apropos (v) issue, the same pertains to addition of Rs. 3,61,480/- on a/c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rest payment, Assessing Officer disallowed ad hoc 40% thereof on the ground that necessary details were not furnished. In appeal CIT(A) deleted the addition, inter alia, observing as under: "The above proviso has come into effect by Finance Act 2003 w.e.f. 01-04-2004 i.e. A.Y. 2004-05. Prior to assessment year 2004-05 the only requirement for claim of interest was that it should be incurred for the purpose of business. From the reading of aforesaid section it is clear that even from A.Y. 2004-05 interest on capital borrowed can be treat ed as of "Capital nature" if it is for acquisition of an asset for extension of existing business and interest is for the period upto the date on which such asset was first p0ut to use. In the case of app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rice more than previous year, the loss whereof is accepted. There is no allegation that the sale price of flats were under stated. Assessing Officer himself has allowed similar loss on sale of flats due to business exigencies in A.Y. 2002-03. Facts and circumstances being similar, we see no infirmity in the order of CIT(A). This ground of revenue is dismissed. 4.1. Apropos ground no. (ii), assessee has referred to various pages of paper book to demonstrate that the charges were paid to HDFC bank for rescheduling of loans already taken, which were costly due to higher rate of interest. In view of these facts, we find no flaw or infirmity in the order of CIT(A), treating the move of the assessee to reduce interest burden and being a bus....