TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 326
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the assessee by the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Income Tax Appeal No. 1381 of 2012, dated 5/3/2014, for the earlier assessment year. In its order, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has referred to the case of Associated Cables Ltd., 286 ITR 596 (Bom. ) decided on 7/8/2006. We are reproducing the relevant portion of the judgment and the same reads as under:- "6. We have carefully considered orders of authorities below, submission of Ld. Representatives of parties and the cases relied upon by Ld. CIT(A). We agree with Ld. CIT(A) that the amount retained by contractee to ensure proper performance of contract will accrue as income to contractee only upon taking over of plant and acceptance of performance test by contractee. The above proposition is supported by Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT VS Simplex Concrete Piles (India) P. Ltd. (supra). ITAT Pune Bench has also held in the case of National Heavy Engineering Co-Operative Ltd., Vs DCIT 105 ITD 48 that amount of retention money did not accrue to assessee as income till the performance of the contract is fulfilled and accepted by contractee. In view of above decision, we do not find any infirmi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....without highlighting any change in the facts of the case. He referred to the cases of Gopal Purohit(336 ITR 287)of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court and Kotak Securities Ltd. (15 taxmann. com 77) and held that the AO was not justified in adopting the different method for estimation of income in respect of the incomplete contracts;that the facts and circumstances for various years, including the year under appeal, were identical. Accordingly, he directed the AO to delete the addition. 3.2. During the course of hearing before us, the Departmental Representative(DR) relied upon the order of the AO. The (AR) supported the order of the first appellate authority (FAA). We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find that assessee was following PCM for the incomplete projects for the last so many assessment years, that the AO had never objected to the method of accounting, that while rejecting the method applied by the assessee, the AO had not mentioned the reasons as to why the method could not be applied for the year under consideration. It is true that principle of res judicata does not apply to the Incometax proceedings, but it is also equally....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed that some of the creditors were very old and the amounts were in dispute. It offered an additional income of Rs. 30, 00, 000/- over and above the regular income for the year under consideration under the head 'un-reconciled creditors'. A statement of Director of the assessee-company was recorded on 14. 02. 2008. While filing the return of income, it offered an amount of Rs. 27. 21 lakhs only. The AO directed the assessee to explain as to why an amount of Rs. 30, 00, 000/-, as per the statement of 14. 02. 2008, should not be added to its total income. After considering the submission of the assessee, the AO held that assessee had not offered any explanation of reduced amount, that the Director had offered Rs. 30, 00, 000/-as undisclosed income during survey proceedings. As a result, an amount of Rs. 2. 78 lakhs [Rs. 30, 00, 000/- (-)Rs. 27, 21, 993/-] was added to the income of the assessee. 5.1. During the appellate proceedings before the FAA, the assessee made detailed submissions. Considering the available material, he held that one of the Directors of the company had offered Rs. 30, 00, 000/- for taxation, that AO was justified in making the addition of Rs. 2. 78 lakhs. He....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... L account under the head 'administrative expenses'. He directed it to file the details in that regard. He held that the assessee had paid interest to custom authorities that it had violated the law with regard to import of machine, that the penal interest/penalty paid by the assessee for violation of law was not allowable as a deduction as per the provisions of explanation to Section 37 (1) of the Act. Altern -atively, it was held that the interest pertained to earlier period, that same was not allowable. It was also opinion of the AO that penal interest was related to acquisition of machinery, that same was to be capitalised. 6.1. The assessee made submissions before the FAA during the appellate proceedings. He observed that the assessee had imported four machines to carry out the job work of Government of India /State Governments, that investigation conducted by Custom Authorities revealed that same were used for construction sites by outside Mumbai, that the Custom Authorities seized the machines for violating the exemption conditions, that the assessees had approached the Settlement Commission while accepting the duty demand of Rs. 3. 21 crores, that it had deposited Rs. 3.....