TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (9) TMI 347
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0/- should not have been included in the total consideration of Rs.8,00,44,828/- determined by him; (2) that the CIT (A) ought to have allowed deduction of Rs.79,564/- in respect of expenditure incurred during the year under dispute; & (3) that the CIT (A) had failed to allow depreciation on motor car which was omitted to be claimed by the assessee either in its return of income or during the course of assessment proceedings. II. ITA No.413/B/11 - By the Revenue: 3. The Revenue has also raised six grounds in its grounds of appeal. Ground Nos.1 & 6 has not been addressed to as they were general in nature. The remaining grounds relate to a solitary issue, namely: 'that the CIT (A) erred in holding that the closing work-in progress (expenditure) amounting to Rs.7,39,57,562/- as shown in the account in the AY 2007-08 was to be taken into account while estimating profit for the year under consideration; and that the CIT (A) had further erred in computing the income by taking into account of the entire contract amount of Rs.8,00,44,828/- and closing work-in progress (exp) of Rs.7.39 crores, thereby arriving at the profit of Rs.60,87,266/-.' 4.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee's contention and also extensively quoting the findings of the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Champion Construction Company reported in 5 ITD 495, the CIT (A) had confirmed the AO's stand that the assessee should have disclosed the income from the said project for the period under consideration. The reasons recorded by the CIT (A) for such a conclusion are extracted as under: "4.6. It is clear from the facts of the record that 95% of the work regarding this project was completed by 31.3.2006. Thus even if the appellant was following project completion method it should have disclosed its profit from the project in the AY 2006-07 taking into account the estimated pending expenditure etc. The project completion method does not mean that payment of taxes on the profits earned should be postponed till the last brick is laid in the project or till the last penny is received from the contractee. 4.7. The appellant has also argued that the AO was wrong in assuming that 95% of the project was completed as on 31.3.2006. The appellant has taken an argument that the release of the sites by MUDA is not linked to development of the layout. However, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it was prayed that the legitimate claims of the assessee require to be allowed. 7.1.1. On the other hand, the learned DR present was duly heard. 7.2. We have carefully considered the submissions of either party and also perused the materials on record. At this juncture, we would like to recall the submission of the learned AR during the course of hearing that the specific issues raised by the assessee in its grounds of appeal have not been considered by the CIT (A) while disposing of the assessee's appeal. For appreciation of facts, the relevant grounds raised before the CIT (A) are extracted as under: "15. The ld. ITO failed to take note of the fact that the appellant was not entitled to the escalation of the consideration of Rs.85 per square yard granted by the Society in respect of the sites allotted to land losers as per the Memorandum of Understanding executed on 1.2.2005; 17. The ld. ITO erred in not allowing deduction of expenditure amounting to Rs.79,564/- incurred during the relevant previous year while determining the total income; 18. The Ld. ITO erred in not allowing depreciation on motor car while determining the total income....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... during the assessment year under consideration, the work completed was 95% which worked out to Rs.7,60,42,586/- and 95% of the expenses of Rs.6,87,75,000/- worked out to Rs.6,53,36,250/- and not Rs.7,39,57,562/- as attributed by the CIT (A). According to the Revenue, the assessee's total profits works out to Rs.1,07,06,336/- as against Rs.60,87,266/- arrived at by the CIT (A). It was, therefore, argued that the total profit of the assessee should have been arrived at Rs.1,07,06,336/- and, therefore, the CIT (A)'s working requires to be modified suitably. 8.1. The AR present was duly heard. 8.2. We have carefully considered the arguments put-forth on behalf of the Revenue and also perused the findings of the CIT (A) on the issue. The relevant findings of the CIT(A) read as follows :- "5.1. The appellant has argued that the AO did not provide for proportionate accrued expenditure on the undeveloped sites. The appellant has also argued that the administrative expenditure incurred during the relevant previous year has also not been allowed. The objection of the appellant is well taken. The appellant has argued that though the AO took 95% of the total anticipated receip....