AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 250
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of industrial estates in the state of Andhra Pradesh. Assessee filed its e-return of income on 30.09.2009 admitting a taxable income of Rs. 11,21,58,380. The return was processed u/s 143(1) on 25.03.2011 and a refund of Rs. 58,17,080 was also issued. Thereafter, assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) were initiated and notice u/s 143(2) was issued and served on the assessee on 3.8.2010. During the pendency of the scrutiny assessment proceedings, assessee filed a revised return of income in physical mode on 30.05.2011 admitting the taxable income of Rs. 16,36,73,160. AO observed that the revised return was filed beyond the time permitted and therefore, is legally invalid. However, since the assessee disclosed higher income as per the revised co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....06,794 paid to NTPC, the AO disallowed the same u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act and brought it to tax. He also made other disallowances and consequential additions to the assessee's income against which assessee preferred appeal before the CIT (A), who granted partial relief to the assessee by deleting both the additions discussed above and confirmed the other additions. Against the relief granted by the CIT (A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. 3. The ld DR, while supporting the order of the AO, submitted that the CIT (A) has granted relief to the assessee u/s 80IAB of the Act, even though (i) assessee has not made the claim in its original return of income and (ii) the assessee has not filed form No.10CCB alongwith the revised return of inco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessee had made the claim in its revised return filed on 30.05.2011. He submitted that filing of Form No.10CCB alongwith the return of income was only a technical requirement and the assessee had filed the same before the AO though on the last date of hearing. He submitted that inspite of observing that it was a belated return, by taking into account the taxable income returned in the revised return of income, AO has accepted the same and therefore, it was a valid return. Therefore, according to him, the AO was wrong in saying that the assessee's claim is not allowable because it was not made in its original return of income. He submitted that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. (Supra) is not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e find that Rule 18BBB required that Form 10CCB be filed along with the return of income, we are of the opinion that it would also fulfil the requirement if it is filed before completion of the assessment proceedings. In the case before us, the the assessee has filed Form No.10CCB on the last date of hearing due to which AO could not have verified the same to appreciate the correctness of the claim. As regards the third objection, we find that the CIT (A) has relied on section 80IA(10) dealing with similar provisions as section 80IAB to hold that the AO in computing the profit and gains of the eligible business for the purpose of the deductions u/s 80IA, can take the amounts of profit as may be reasonably deemed to have been derived therefr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n amount. It is also observed that the interest receivable and interest payable are both reflected in the books of accounts of the assessee and there is no income to the assessee as it is only a conduit to receive interest from VIWSCO to make payment to the lenders. It was submitted by the ld Counsel for the assessee that all the three organizations who have lent money to VIWSCO are govt. organizations and therefore, there was no requirement of making any TDS from the payments made to them and that since NTPC had ceased to be a govt. organization and became a public sector undertaking from the relevant previous year, the assessee was required to deduct tax at source while making the payment to NTPC. He submitted that in order to avoid unnec....