TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 1321
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... interest and thus, the claim has crystallized during the year. She has further erred in disallowing the expenditure but at the same time not excluding the prior period income of Rs. 1187.70 Lacs declared during the year. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in holding that administrative expenses and the employees cost in respect of 5 units where toll collection takes place should be allocated against the BOT projects where deduction u/s 80-IA(4) has been claimed ignoring that all expenses has been considered in respect of the projects on which deduction u/s 80-IA(4) has been claimed." 2. Regarding ground Nos. 1 and 2, briefly the facts of the case are that during the year, assessee claimed prior period expenses of Rs. 10,90,32,614/- and offered for tax prior period income of Rs. 12,03,52,172/-. Out of the prior period expenses of Rs. 10,90,32,614/-, the assessee added depreciation of Rs. 8,55,54,748/- in the computation of total income. Thus, prior period expense is claimed at Rs. 2,34,79,830/- which comprises of the following amounts:- General Overhead & Plant Running Expenses Rs. 10,22,608/- Reversal of centage income Rs. 19,69,682/- Interest on BOT asset R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the books this year and on year to year basis was claimed in the same manner and fashion was rightly claimed and allowed during the year, is a finding of fact. In our view the deletion of disallowance is based on material evidence on record and is a finding of fact, no question of law much less substantial question of law can be said to emerge. We find no perversity or illegality in the order impugned so as to call for interference of this Court." 4. The ld AR further placed reliance on CIT Vs. Excel Industries Ltd. 358ITR 295 (SC), Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs CIT 213 ITR 523 (Guj.) and Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Inv. Corpn. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (66 & 354/JP/08, dated 30-09-2008 for AY 2004-05 and 138 & 235/JP/09 for AY 05-06 dated 08-01-2010). It was further submitted that in assessee's own case, the Tribunal for AY 2011-12 has allowed the prior period expenditure claimed by the assessee as per the finding given in Para 6.2, Pg 7-8 of its order. 5. In so far as claim of interest on BOT asset is concerned, it was further submitted that during the year under consideration because of amendment in Schedule XIV of the Companies Act, 1956, the method of re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is in respect of loan obtained for creation of toll assets. Where such interest is paid to any public financial institution or state financial corporation or state industrial investment corporation as defined in section 43B, then in such a scenario, the ld CIT(A) is correct to hold that unless such interest has been shown as actually paid, the same cannot be allowed. However, in absence of specific details, it is difficult to determine the same. We are accordingly setting-aside the matter to the file of the AO to examine the same afresh. In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 9. Regarding ground no. 3, briefly the fact of the case are that the assessee claimed deduction u/s 80IA at Rs. 4,70,61,322/- in respect of toll project. The AO observed that establishment expenses of Rs. 24,43,65,716/- and administrative expenses of Rs. 5,11,24,469/- is not allocated against the income on which deduction u/s 80IA is claimed. He therefore, worked out proportionate indirect expenses against such income at Rs. 2,58,80,837/- calculated as under and accordingly reduced the claim of deduction u/s 80IA to that extent:- (a) Net receipts from eligible projects (BOT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uld not be considered for allocation. This issue was also decided by my predecessor in favour of the assessee in A.Y11-12.The AO is directed to consider the allocation of these units only. It was further submitted that Rs. 25 Lacs paid for stamp duty for share included in the administrative expense of Rs. 5.11 crores has already been disallowed in the computation, AO to verify the same and modify accordingly. Thus the disallowance made by the AO is confirmed, subject to the above adjustments. The ground of appeal is partly allowed." 11. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR submitted that the corporation is having unit wise as well as project wise accounting system. At the year end, accounts of the units are consolidated at Head Office and Balance Sheet and Profit & Loss account is prepared. In respect of BOT projects, company has awarded the work of toll collection to the contractor who pays the toll collection charges as per the terms of the award. All expenses on salary/administration etc. is born by the contractor. Therefore, the corporation does not incur any expenditure on salary or on administration of the BOT collection work project. Only small expenditure is incurred ....