TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (4) TMI 789
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. The learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.17,38,364/- made on account of disallowance of administrative and other expenses and Rs.1,97,288/-, made on account of depreciation. 2. The learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition made on account of interest income of Rs.5,35,77,935/-. 3. The learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.3,00,000/- made on account of disallowance of expenses claimed as expenditure on account of contribution to Gujarat Vibrant Summit 2007. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld.CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 5. It is therefore prayed that the order of the learned CIT(Appeals) may be set aside and that of the A.O. be restored to the above extent. 2.1. Briefly stated facts are that the case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny assessment and the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was framed vide order dated 26/11/2009, thereby the Assessing Officer(AO) made addition of Rs.17,38,364/- on accou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase of U.P.Bhumi Sudhar Nigam vs. CIT reported at (2006) 280 ITR 197 (All.) and on the judgement of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Indo Gulf Fertilizer & Chemical Corpn.Ltd. reported at (2006) 280 ITR 621 (All.). 5.2. On the contrary, the ld.Sr.counsel for the assessee submitted that the AO has wrongly applied the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. vs. CIT reported at (1997) 227 ITR 172 (SC). He submitted that the assessee is only a nodal agency supervising the work assigned by the different agencies and the advances given as per the agreement were placed in fixed deposits. The interest so accrued was not offered for tax since such interest was credited to the respective accounts of the agencies and utilized for the purpose of projects. He submitted that under the identical facts, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sar Infracon Pvt.Ltd. has decided this issue in favour of assessee. He further placed reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development & Finance Corpn. reported a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of Rs.50 Crores" and considering the decision(s) of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat Municipal Finance Board vs. Dy.CIT reported at (1996) 221 ITR 317 as well as in the case of Gujarat Power Corporation Ltd. vs. ITO reported at (2013) 354 ITR 201(Guj.), the Tribunal has allowed the appeal by deleting the addition of Rs.1,25,44,938/- made by the AO. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court affirmed the view taken by the Tribunal. 6.2. Since the facts are identical in this case also, the assessee has credited the interest accrued to the respect grant accounts, therefore we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld.CIT(A), the same is hereby upheld. Thus, this ground of Revenue's appeal is dismissed. 7. Ground No.3 is against the disallowance of the expenses claimed as expenditure on account of contribution to Gujarat Vibrant Summit- 2007. The ld.CIT-DR supported the order of the AO and submitted that the ld.CIT(A) was not justified. On the contrary, ld.counsel for the assessee supported the order of the ld.CIT(A). 7.1. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pletely different issue having no bearing to the facts of the appellant Corporation. Ld.CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the controversy in proper perspective taking relevant facts in consideration that the appellant being a developer was entitled to deduction claimed under the provisions of the Act. 4. Levy of interest u/s.234B & 234C of the Act is not justified. 5. Initiation of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act is not justified. 10.1. Briefly stated facts are that the case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny assessment and the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act was framed vide order dated 10/12/2010, thereby the AO disallowed the claim of the assessee made u/s.80IA(4) of the Act. Against this, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), who after considering the submissions of the assessee, rejected the appeal. 11. Ground Nos.1, 2 & 3 are inter-connected and, therefore, the same are decided together. 11.1. The ld.Sr.counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is a Developer and, therefore, he is entitled for deduction u/s.80-IA(4) of the Act. 11.2. On the contrary, ld.CIT-DR/Sr.DR submitted that the order of the ld.CIT(A) is justified. He drew our atten....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... thereof not being revenue of the appellant, it being not affected by the actual cost and efficiency of work, the assets created and the source not being of the appellant at any stage and it being entitled to a fixed remuneration for its professional services; it clearly is falling in the excluded category as per the amended Explanation below section 80IA(13); and therefore, not eligible for deduction. The decision of the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of CIT vs. ABG Heavy Industries Ltd. 322 ITR 323 is not on the issue of whether the activity of the concern is of the nature of a works contact. The decision of honorable Supreme Court in the case of Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation 227 ITR 414 is also not applicable as in that case the question was not whether the appellant was doing the activities in its own right or as a nodal agency as in the present case. Similarly, the facts and question are distinguishable in other cases cited by the appellant. The appellant is held not eligible for deduction claimed u/s.80IA(4) and the decision of the AO is upheld. The first two grounds of appeal are therefore, dismissed." 12.1. We find one of the objections of the ld.C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....denying deduction by choosing to follow appellate order of earlier year. It be so held now. 4. Levy of interest u/s.234B & 234C of the Act is not justified. 5. Withdrawal of interest u/s.244A of the act is not justified. 6. Initiation of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act is not justified. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal. (b) ITA No.2671/Ahd/2013 1. Ld.CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming action of AO denying deduction claimed u/s.80IA(4) of the Act. Both the lower authorities erred in holding appellant as a buffer agency granting work contract of local bodies on behalf of the Government of Gujarat and not as a developer of infrastructure facility. The order of ld.CIT(A) denying deduction claimed u/s80IA(4) of the Act to the appellant simply following appellate order of A.Y. 2008/09 being erroneous deserves to be quashed. It be so held now. 2. Ld.CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in holding that no risk was undertaken by the appellant while executing the projects as it was entitled to only fixed percentage of project cost. This observa....