TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (12) TMI 591
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of interest as the assessee has not shown bank interest whereas TDS was claimed as per the TDS certificates. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A)has erred in deleting the addition made by the A.O. of Rs. 2,12,762/- on account of margin in sub-contract work to the tune of 6% which was half of net profit. 5 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in al lowing ground of appeal No 8 , without passing a speaking order relating to the issue of circular issued by CBDT w.r.t depreciation by holding that the issue had already been adjudicated. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in al lowing ground of appeal No 9 and 10 relating to rejection of books oaf accounts without passing a speaking order by holding that the issue had already been adjudicated. 7. It is prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT (A) be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer may be restored. 8. The appellant craves leave to add or amend any grounds of appeal before the appeal is heard or is disposed off." 3. The first ground of appeal is general in nature, hence, no separate adjudication ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ss receipts, which was enhanced to 12% by the. CIT(A) following the identical nature of work being done by the assessee and Shri Gurinder Pal Singh. In line without reasoning in the paras herein above, we set aside the order of CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to compute the income after applying net profit rate of 8% to the contract receipts less cost of material supplied by the Government and purchases made from Government Agencies. In the facts of the case, no further deduct ion is allowable on account of depreciation, interest and other expenses, once the income is determined by applying net profit rate to the receipts. The ground. No. 2 raised by the assessee is thus allowed and ground Nos. 4&5 are dismissed." 3.3.1 I am entirely in agreement with the findings given by Hon'ble ITAT, Chandigarh in ITA No. 865/Chd/2009 (supra). Hence, the assessing officer is directed to recompute the net profit by applying net profit rate of 8% instead of 12% to the contract receipts less cost of bitumen purchased from govt. agencies after verification and cost of the material supplied by the government . Ground of appeal no. 2 is allowed." 6. We have carefully perused the rival su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A). The brief facts of the case are that the AO noticed that as per TDS certificate, the assessee received bank interest amounting to Rs.1,99,219/-, from Canara Bank. The AO found that it was not verifiable whether bank interest debited to Profit & Loss Account, was included in bank interest. Accordingly, AO made addition of Rs.1,99,219/-. Ld. CIT(A), on appreciation of the submissions filed before him allowed the ground of appeal raised before him. Before CIT(A), copy of account of interest income, in assessee's books of account was produced, whereby bank interest of Rs.1,99,219/- was duly credited and the interest figure debited to Profit & Loss Account represented net figure. Findings of Ld. CIT(A) as contained in para 6.3 are reproduced hereunder : "6.3 I have considered the submission of the ld. Counsel for the appellant and have gone through para- 12 of the order of my predecessor dated 01.12.2009 in appeal No. 439/08-09. I am entirely in agreement with the findings of my predecessor that since deduction on account of interest paid by the appellant was not allowed, income from interest should not have been added because interest receipt is only against interest paid. Furth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....owledgements of Income Tax Returns, filed by the Sub contractors. It was contended by the assessee that no proper margin was involved in such sub-contract work and therefore, 100% of the subcontract value was to be allowed. AO was of the opinion that the assessee had not produced books of account and he would definitely retain some profit margin, while sub-contracting the work and therefore, 6% of net profit was applied by the AO, on the sub-contract and addition of Rs.2,12,760/- was made by the AO. Ld. CIT(A), on appreciation of the submissions and facts of the case and also following the decision of jurisdictional High Court, in the case of CIT V Pran Nath Gupta (supra) allowed the appeal of the assessee. The relevant findings of the CIT(A) are reproduced hereunder: "5.3 I have duly considered the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the appellant and have also gone through the relevant portion of the assessment order for A.Y. 2004-05 in the case of Shri Gurinder Pal Singh, in which the value of sub-contract was reduced from the gross receipts. I have also gone through the judgment relied upon by the appellant. The assessing officer had pointed out that the case of the appellant ....