2015 (10) TMI 307

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t the outset, learned AR mentioned that ground Nos. 2, 3 & 4 are not relevant for the impugned assessment year as they do not arise either from the assessment order or from the CIT(A)'s order. Learned DR also accepted this fact. On perusal of assessment order and CIT(A)'s order, it is noticed that issue raised in these grounds are neither subject matter of addition in the assessment order nor were subject matter of appeal before the CIT(A). As the issue raised in the aforesaid grounds are not relevant for the purpose of this appeal, these grounds are dismissed as infructuous. 3. In Ground No. 5, the issue raised is with regard to addition made on estimation basis by AO on construction of housing projects. 4. Briefly, the facts....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... was added to income of assessee. Being aggrieved of the addition made, assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). 5. In course of hearing before the CIT(A), assessee submitted that in identical nature of dispute for the preceding AY 2008-09, ITAT in order passed in ITA Nos. 342-343/hyd/12 dated 20/01/2014 has decided the issue in favour of assessee. Following the decision of ITAT, CIT(A) deleted the addition. 6. We have heard the submissions of the parties and perused the materials on record as well as the orders of the revenue authorities. Though, the learned DR agreed with the fact that issue is covered by the order of ITAT for the preceding assessment year, but, he nevertheless submitted that AO was correct in estimating the pro....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....re is no basic deviation in the method followed by the assessee regarding recognising of income. However, he observed in the same breath that there is basic flaw in the method followed by the assessee to have threshold limit of 30% as the said threshold limit can be differed by various means. When there is no deviation in recognising the income by the assessee, the CIT(A) cannot recompute the profit of the assessee by observing that there is basic flaw in the method followed by the assessee to have threshold limit of 30% as the said threshold limit can be differed by various means, which is unwarranted. Accordingly, the findings of the CIT(A) are vacated and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed." As the CIT(A) has deleted the a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he judicial precedents on this issue. There is no dispute to the fact that assessee has remitted the TDS amount before the due date of return for the impugned assessment year as provided u/s 139(1) of the Act. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of M/s Virgin Creations (supra) interpreting the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) has held that if TDS amount is remitted to the Govt. account prior to the due date of return, u/s 139(1), there will be no disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) as first proviso to section 40(a)(ia) brought to the statute by Finance Act, 2010 will apply retrospectively. This decision of the Calcutta High Court has been followed by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT Vs. PEC Electricals Pvt. Ltd. vide I....