TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (10) TMI 1046
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....irst we will take up the MA No. 113/Hyd/2012. The first grievance of the assessee in this MA is that the assessee raised the ground in its appeal with regard action of CIT(A) in confirming the estimation of income from contract receipts at 12.5% on Rs. 33,00,04,334 which includes works take on sub-contract from others aggregating to Rs. 21,09,35,829. Against this ground, the Tribunal given a finding in its order dated 30.11.2009 in ITA No. 1141/Hyd/200 as follows: "8. We have carefully gone through the above order of the Tribunal. In that case, the assessee has not undertaken any sub contracts. But in the present case, the argument of the assessee counsel is that the assessee is also undertaken sub contract from other contractors. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....21,09,35,829. However, the Assessing Officer applied the rate of 12.5% on the aggregate receipt of Rs. 33,00,04,334. Further he submitted that regarding the subcontract given by the assessee to other parties, the Assessing Officer applied 6% in original assessment. However, on appeal, the CIT(A) reduced it to 5% from 6%. On this issue neither the assessee nor the Department raised any ground before the Tribunal. However, while passing the consequential order the Assessing Officer applied 8% as against 5% adopted by the learned CIT(A). Accordingly, the learned AR prayed for a suitable direction on this issue. 4. The learned DR relied on the order of the Tribunal. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. In ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l cannot decide this issue and the Assessing Officer while passing the consequential order if disturbed the rate of profit already fixed by the CIT(A) on the subcontract receipts of Rs. 12,20,21,402 at 5%, the remedy lies elsewhere to the assessee and not through this miscellaneous application. 7. The next issue is with regard to treatment of interest receipt on bank deposit separately as income of the assessee under the head 'income from other sources' after estimating the income of the assessee from business. 8. The learned AR submitted that the interest received on margin money deposited of Rs. 2,96,42,907 and the judgement of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Vidyuth Steels ltd. (219 ITR 30) is directly applicable t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Act. 11. Further the assessee raised the issue that sale of material represents sale of scrap remained after construction is completed. The material was purchased for being used in the process of construction and the scrap left out was sold. This has the effect of reducing the expenditure and is not an income by itself. According to the AR this fact was not considered by the Tribunal while deciding the issue. 12. The DR relied on the order of the Tribunal. 13. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. The Tribunal considered the entire relevant facts and gave a finding in para 11 of its order, as follows: "11. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. Admittedly, the ent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2003-04 is not the same as in the A.Y. 2001-02. For the A.Y. 2003-04 the Assessing Officer adopted basic rate at 12.5%. In respect of subcontract and others, the Assessing Officer appropriately reduced the profit rate. According to the AR it was the contention of the assessee before the Tribunal on earlier occasion in its appeal was to reduce the basic rate of 12.5% which was adopted by the Assessing Officer. This was not considered by the Tribunal. He prayed to rectify the order of the Tribunal accordingly as the Assessing Officer while passing the consequential order to the Tribunal order dated 30.11.2009 adopted a rate of 12.5% and 8% on all the own contracts and subcontracts, respectively, and thereby the income was enhanced as compare....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....act receipt. 19. The learned AR submitted that the assessee raised the ground as follows: "4. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in separately considering the sale proceeds of ready mix, bitumen, diesel, steel, cement, etc., in their entirety to the profit estimated from contract activities. He ought to have considered the fact that insofar as the sale proceedings of such items are concerned, the appellant would be deriving only the net income and that the entire amount realised cannot be the profit." 20. The learned AR submitted that the Tribunal clubbed the ground relating to sale of scrap in A.Y. 2001-02 with the above ground which is not correct. For the A.Y. 2001-02, the question was ....