TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 747
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2015-16 passed U/s. 263 of the Act for the AYs: 2010-11 & 2011-12. 2. The assessee has raised several identical grounds in both the appeals and for the sake of convenience the concise grounds are stated hereinbelow for adjudication:- (i) Ld. CIT (A) has erred in invoking his powers U/s. 263 of the Act. (ii) Ld. CIT (A) has erred in holding that the assessee is not eligible for deduction U/s. 35D of the Act as the expenses were incurred during the assessment year 2008-09. (iii) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in holding that the share of profits earned from the Joint Ventures projects viz., Mytas KBL-JV, Mytax KCC PL FLOW MORE JV, Mytas - Ritvik JV, Mytas Shankaranarayana JV, are assessable in the hands of the assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see had initially incurred the expenditure during the Financial Year 2007-08 relevant to the AY 2008-09. The Ld. CIT was of the view that the assessee is not entitled for the claim of deduction U/s. 35D of the Act because the deduction is available only to "Industrial Undertaking" and the assessee was a Civil Contractor and not an 'industrial undertaking'. The Ld. AR pointed out before us that the word 'industrial undertaking' was omitted from the section 35D by the Finance Act, 2008 w.e.f. 01/04/2009. It was therefore argued that for the relevant AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 the assessee is entitled for the benefit of section 35D of the Act. The Ld. AR further submitted before us that the provisions of section 35D of the Act entitles an Indian R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee has incurred the expenditure during the AY 2008-09 wherein the assessee was not entitled for the claim of deduction U/s. 35D of the Act as the assessee was not an 'industrial undertaking', however the Act was amended and the word 'industrial' was omitted by the Finance Act, 2008 w.e.f 1/04/2009. Moreover, the expenditure incurred by the assessee was subsequent to the 31st Day of March, 1970. In this situation, the assessee has fulfilled all the conditions stipulated under the Act for the residual period viz., AY 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13. Therefore, there is no reason why the benefit of section 35D of the Act should not be allowed to the assessee for the AY 2010-11 to 2012-13. Hence, we do not find any error in the order of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act on this issue is not warranted. 9. Ground No.4 & 5 depreciation on Plant & Machinery and Notional gain: 10. The Ld. CIT further observed that the assessee had claimed depreciation of Rs. 3,19,619/-, Rs. 1,65,18,278/- being 15% of Rs. 26,10,793/- and Rs. 11,01,21,858/- for the AYs 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively being loss arising out of fluctuation in Forex rates with respect to acquisition of depreciable asset from abroad. The Ld. CIT further observed that the notional gain (sic) loss of Rs. 18,12,42,208/- for the AY 2010-11 and the notional gain (sic) loss of Rs. 9,17,21,454/- for the AY 2011-12 shall not qualify for deduction as the same is 'notional' in character and requires....