AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 870
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 20,00,000/- to State Renewal Fund as an allowable expenditure though it is not an actual expenditure. 2. Where on the facts and circumstances of the case in law, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made by the AO by disallowing Rs. 1,97,491/- of prior period expenses. 3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) was justified restricting the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA to Rs. 9.24 lacs against Rs. 3,84,50,924/-. 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,04,590/- made by the AO for depositing the employee's contribution to PF beyond the prescribed time limit provided in respective Acts. 5. W....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see submitted that all the issues are covered in favour of the assessee. This fact is not controverted by the ld. Departmental Representatives. 4. Ground no. 1, is against deletion of disallowance of Rs. 20 lakhs made on account of contribution to State Renewal Funds. We find that the similar issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by the judgment of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Rajasthan State Seeds Corporation Ltd. 386 ITR 267. Respectively following the Judgment of the High Court, we do not see any reason to interfere into the order of the ld. CIT (A), therefore, same is hereby affirmed. Therefore, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 5. Ground no. 2 is against deletion of addition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., is acceptable. Expenditure of Rs. 76,629/- with respect to Gurgaon and expenditure of Rs. 15,000/- with respect to the mechanical unit are in the nature of prior period expenses which covered in favour of the appellant by the orders of the CIT(A)-II, Jaipur for A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11. Following the above orders, this prior period expenditure is allowable. With respect to the expenditure of Rs. 16,33,880/- pertaining to the Bikaner Unit, this expenditure has been incurred on shifting of plan in an earlier year, which was originally recoverable from PWD but since the work got withdrawn and the amount could not be recovered from PWD, this amount has been debited in this years. This contention of the appellant is acceptable. In view, of the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee reiterated the submissions as made in the written submissions. Ld. Departmental Representatives is conceded the facts, however he supported the order of the Assessing Officer. 6.1 We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material available on record. We find that the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case in pertaining to the assessment year 2011-12 in ITA No. 558/JP/2016, decided the issue by observing as under:- "8.2 We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The AO observed that during the year under consideration, the Company has claimed esta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot be allocate proportionately to road/Bridge projects in proportion to their income of Rs. 23,00,24,830/- with total income of Rs. 64,78,66,500/- The assessee, in response to this query, made a detailed submission. However, the submissions of the assessee were not found acceptable by the AO. The AO, therefore, by relying on the provisions of section 80IA(5) allocated the direct expenses towards eligible units as well. The AO further observed that it is clear that many expenses of common nature i.e. head office and other dayto- day management and supervision expenses have not been apportioned amongst the unit claiming deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. The assessee has considered only direct operation and maintenance expenses for working out th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aled, the gross turnover amounts to Rs. 69,89,85,491/- as against Rs. 4,38,13,34,652/- claimed by the appellant. 5.6. The appellant has stated that the work of BOT projects is handled by only five divisions of the appellant and the remaining 26 divisions do not undertake any work relating to BOT projects. Therefore, payment to and provision for employees of these five divisions and the head office should only be taken. This contentions of the appellant is correct and this expenditure relatable to BOT projects is taken as Rs. 16,98,40,588/-. 5.7. The appellant has stated that administrative expenses incurred at the head office of Rs. 6,05,47,731/- do not related to BOT projects. Looking to the nature of administrative expenses, this cont....