TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (9) TMI 991
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 14A of the Act. 2. We first take up the dispute relating to allowability of deduction under section 80IA of the Act which is relevant only to assessee's appeal. The AO during the assessment proceedings noted that the assessee had claimed deduction under section 80IA of ₹ 7,67,03,000/- in respect of income earned from execution of projects relevant to development of infrastructure facilities such as water supply and sewerage projects both composite and part composite projects. The AO asked the assessee to justify the claim of deduction under section 80IA. The assessee submitted that it was undertaking development and maintenance of water supply projects, sewerage projects and irrigation projects etc. These projects were developed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lso submitted that the amendment to section 80IA(4) by the Finance Act affects only those who undertake mere labour job while in the case of assessee job and responsibility arising were not like labour job. The assessee pointed out that whenever the assessee had done work as a sub-contractor or contractor no deduction had been claimed under section 80IA. The assessee further submitted that the project undertaken by the assessee included conceptualization, design and drawing of the project as well as execution and therefore, assessee was a developer and not a mere contractor. CIT(A) however was not satisfied by the arguments advances. He referred to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of B.T. Patil & Sons, Belgaum Construction Pvt. Ltd.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dering the decision of the Tribunal in case of B.T. Patil & Sons, Belgaum Construction Pvt. Ltd. (supra), and the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in case of ABG Heavy Industries Ltd. (supra) have held that the claim of deduction under section 80IA was allowable. It was pointed out that the said case was similar to the case of the assessee. Accordingly it was urged that the issue relating to the new projects executed by the assessee needs fresh consideration in the light of these developments. The ld. DR on the other hand strongly supported the order of CIT(A) and submitted that all projects undertaken by the assessee were similar and, therefore, claim has to be disallowed in view of the decision of the Tribunal in assessee's ow....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spects of the matter. In so far as the income from the projects undertaken earlier is concerned, the Tribunal has already disallowed the claim of the assessee in assessment years 2004-05 to 2006-07 and, therefore, in relation to income from these projects, no deduction can be allowed in view of the decision of the Tribunal in assessee's own case. As regards the claim of the assessee that projects undertaken this year were different we find that these aspects had not been examined by CIT(A). CIT(A) had disallowed the claim following the decision of the Tribunal in assessee's own case in assessment year 2006-07. In our view the claim of the ld. AR that the projects executed in this year were different needs to be examined at the level of CIT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... It was also pointed out that the assessee had earned dividend income of only ₹ 68,95,106/-, but the expenses have been disallowed to the tune of ₹ 1,05,61,038/-. The assessee pointed out that the provision of Rule 8D were not applicable as these were prospective in nature as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. vs. DCIT (328 ITR 81). After considering the submission of the assessee CIT(A) observed that Rule 8D was applicable from assessment year 2008-09 and in respect of prior years, disallowance had to be made on reasonable basis as held by Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. (supra). CIT(A) accordingly directed the AO to disallow the expen....