2016 (2) TMI 428

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. The assessee has raised the ground that disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act is incorrect. Without prejudice to the above, the assessee has raised an alternative contention that the disallowance made u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act to be considered as part of business profit of the assessee of the eligible projects so as to grant deduction u/s.80-IB(10) of the Act. ITA No.2092/Mds./2015 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee claimed an expenditure of Rs. 1,96,89,532/-. It is in the nature of contract payment on which there was no deduction of tax at source at the time of payment. According to the AO, it attracts the provisions of the section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and the same....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....udgement of Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s.Vector Shipping Services (P) Ltd cited supra, also the judgement of Kerala High Court in the case of Shri Thomas George Muhoot in ITA No.278 of 2014 vide order dated 3rd day of July 2015, we have not considered the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shri D.Umapathy in ITA No.2435/Mds./2014 vide order dated 14.08.2015. Further regarding the alternate submission of the Authorized Representative to consider the disallowance made u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act, if any to be considered as part of the business profit in view of the judgement of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. GEM Plus Jewellery India Ltd., wherein it was held that the assessee is entitled to exemption u/s.10A wit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 6. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer ought not to have included the income from other projects and other income in calculating the eligible profits u/s.80-IB(10). 7. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the construction area of other projects which are non 80-IB(10) projects are not to be taken into account in determining the deduction u/s.80-IB(10). 8. For that the appellant objects to the levy of interest uls.234B." 6. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) challenging the computation of eligible income for deduction u/s.80-IB(10) of the Ace and levy of interest u/s.234B of....