TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (9) TMI 89
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see deduction of Rs. 5,20,17,982/- which was disallowed by the AO u/s 43B of the I.T. Act on account of advance excise duty. 2. Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts of the case in directing the AO to allow the assessee deduction of Rs. 1,43,34,019/- which was disallowed by the AO on account of provision for leave encashment. 3. Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts of the case in directing the AO to allow the assessee loss of Rs. 44,65,663/- pertaining to DITTM. 4. The appellant craves leave, modify, add or forego and ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal. ITA No.- 2489/Del/2015 "1. Ld. CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts of case by failing to treat the assessment order passed by Ld. AO to be infructuous and void being based on original return when revised return is duly filed. 2. Ld. CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts of case by: 2.1 directing the Ld. AO to consider the revised return 2.2. allowing another opportunity to the Ld. AO for adjudicating upon the revised return through remand report when time period allowed by section 153(1) for concluding the assessment u/s 143(3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erred in confirming the action of the AO in 2.1 making a net addition of Rs. 1,38,88,879/- to the income on account of income from "Dilli Haat". 2.2 Treating a part of income from "Dilli Haat" as rental income as against the claim of the assessee to treat the same as income from business. 2.3 Restricting the claim of expenses to 30% of receipts from "Dilli Haat". 3. Without prejudice to Ground No. 2, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the arbitrary disallowance of expenditure by the Ld. AO, while determining the income from Dilli Haat, as: 3.1 proportionately attributable expenses w.r.t. rental income amounting to Rs. 1,15,41,687/- 3.2 50% of other remaining expenses on account of NDMC share amounting to Rs. 1,15,33,415/- 4. Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts of the case by confirming the rejection of claim of 4.1 Provision for Doubtful Debts amounting to Rs. 4,15,593/-. 4.2 Deduction of Rs. 32,59,477/- being revenue booked under damage charges not representing real income of assessee." ITA No. 2792/Del/2015 "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r alternate contention 8. Re. Ground No. 7: Rectification application filed u/s 154 before Ld. AO 9. Re. Ground Noj. 7: Screeshot on the income tax portal stating the effect of TDS calimed in application u/s 154 10. Re. Ground no. 1 & 2 (Deptt): Order of Hon'ble ITAT in assessee's case in AY 2008-09 and AY 2009-10. 11. Re. Ground No. 1 & 2 (Deptt): order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in assessee's case in AY 2008-09 and AY 2009-10. 12. Re. Ground No. 3(Deptt): Order of Ld. AO in assessee's case for AY 2005-06. 13. Re. Ground No. 4(Deptt). Notification no. 53/2011, dt. 30.09.2011 in relation to section 35(1)(ii) and names of institutes covered under CSIR. 14. Re. Ground No. 4 (Deptt): Confirmation by CRRI for receipts of payment from DTTDC 15. Re. Ground No. 4 (Deptt): order of DCIT (Exemption) New Delhi u/s 10(23C)(iv) regarding exemption to CSIR. 16. Re. Ground No. 5 (Deptt): Order of Ld. CIT(S) dt. 30.01.2019 in assessee's case in AY 2013-14. 17. Re. Ground No. 5 (Deptt): MOU issued in 1993 by Ministry of Tourism, GOI and renewal letter dt. 08.09.2005. 18. Re. Ground No. 5 (Deptt) : A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated 28.03.2018 in ITA Nos. 3457/Del/21007, 1505/Del/2009, 4877/Del/2009, 1903/Del/2011, 1634/Del/2011, 2687/Del/2012 and 4910/Del/2012. Directions of ITAT in aforesaid order dated 28.03.2018 are contained in paragraphs 19 and 22 of the order which are reproduced below for ready reference:- "19 Further, the nature of the business activity of the assessee unmistakably deciphers that it cannot be carried out without letting out stalls on regular frequency to different craftsmen. In the above hue, we have absolutely no doubt in our mind that income of Rs. 1.82 crore earned by the assessee from use of craft stalls on 15 days basis is 'Business income' and has been considered by the authorities below as 'Income from house property'. The impugned order is pro tanto vacated. 22. Turning to the remaining amount of Rs. 54.00 lac, we find that the same consists of Rs. 41.00 lac, being, income from space rented on regular basis and Rs. 12.99 lac, being, licence fee for allowing activities of food court, souvenir shops, bank and PCO. This amount of Rs. 54 lac has been earned by the assessee from the letting out of its permanent structures. The same ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....struction on rotational basis at Rs. 200 per day for 15 Days. Dilli Haat was conceptualized on the land leased by NDMC and as a consideration for lease of land, assessee was required to pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- per annum as license fee plus 50% of the sales of the entry tickets of Dilli Haat per annum." (2.3.1) During the A.Y. 2010-11 Assessee earned total gross receipts amounting to Rs. 5,98,17,388/- from "Dilli Haat", break up of which is as follows :- Sr. No. Particulars Amount a Stall Festival Income 12,92,802 b License fees allowing activities of food court, souvenir shops, 3,38,54,654 Bank and PCO Total (A) 3,51,47,456 c. Other receipts (brand exhibition stage) 78,82,381 d Entry Ticket Charges 1,60,16,025 e Misc. Receipts 7,71,526 Total (B) 2,46,69,932 Total Gross receipts (C ) 5,98,17,388 As against the total receipts at "Dilli Haat" amounting to aforesaid Rs. 5,98,17,388/- the total expenses incurred by the assessee at "Dilli Haat" was Rs. 3,03,00,709/-; and the net income of Rs. 2,95,16,679/- has been shown by the assessee as busine....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Y. 2010-11; the Ld. CIT(A) has observed that facts in the years under consideration are identical the facts of A.Y. 2009-10. During appellate proceedings in ITAT; neither side has brought any distinguishing facts for this year to our attention as compared to facts for A.Y. 2004-05 to A.Y. 2009-10. Therefore, respectfully following the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Delhi for A.Y. 2004-05 to A. Y. 2009-10 vide aforesaid order dated 28.03.2018 in Assessee's own case, we direct the AO to assess the amount of Rs. 2,39,66,739/- received by assessee for use of the craft stalls in A. Y. 2010-11 and Rs. 2,78,05,181/- for A. Y. 2012-13 as Assessee's income under the head "Profits and Gains of Business or Profession" and the balance amount of Rs. 98,87,914/- for A.Y. 2010-11 and Rs. 1,98,51,494/- for A.Y. 2012-13 is to be assessed as "Income from House Property". Again, respectfully following aforesaid order dated 28.03.2018 of Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Delhi in Assessee's own case, for A.Y. 2004-05 to A.Y. 2009-10, we also direct the AO to allow necessary deductions against these incomes as per law, after allowing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Grounds 5 and 6 in Asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....No. 2400/Del/2011 for the preposition that: "Income of a taxpayer is not required to be computed merely with reference to the TDS certificate, but assessment of an income is altogether an independent exercise." However, the Ld. AR of the Assessee fairly conceded that the regular method of accounting being followed by the assessee is the mercantile system of accounting. (3.1) The Ld. DR appearing for Revenue submitted that the addition should be confirmed in view of the fact that the assessee has already claimed credit for tax deducted at source in respect of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 61,81,344/-. She also relied on the orders of the AO and Ld. CIT(A). (3.2) We agree respectfully with the proposition that income of a taxpayer is not required to be computed merely with reference to the TDS Certificate, but assessment of an income is an altogether independent exercise. We wish to add that income of an Assessee under the head "Profits and Gains of Business or Profession" and "Income from other sources" is to be determined regardless of whether tax was deducted at source in respect of amounts received or accrued to the assessee. What is relevant is the system of accounting regul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the case of the assessee that interest income of the assessee from Fixed Deposits in Bank is exempt and thus, undisputedly the income is taxable. Undisputedly again, the regular system of accounting followed by the assessee is mercantile system of accounting. Undisputedly also, Interest Income from Fixed Deposits in Bank has accrued to the assessee during the year but was not offered as income on accrual basis under mercantile system of accounting. As income from Fixed Deposits in Bank has accrued to the assessee in accordance with system of accounting regularly employed (mercantile system, in this case), the income has to be assessed during the year. It is irrelevant whether the assessee is a public sector undertaking. Unless specifically provided under law or intended by necessary implication under specific provisions of law, or held in binding judicial precedents; a public sector undertaking cannot legitimately claim a preferential treatment in determination of its tax liabilities. Therefore, we hold that the facts that assessee is a public sector undertaking is irrelevant. It is also immaterial whether the assessee was facing liquidity crunch. When the income has to be assessed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e has also been decided in favour of the assessee vide order dated 09.07.2014 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in assessee's own case in ITA Nos. 267/2014 and 268/14. The Ld. DR appearing for Revenue agree that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee vide aforesaid orders of Hon'ble Delhi High Court and Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Delhi in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2008-09 and A.Y. 2009-10. Respectfully following these judicial precedents, we also decide this issue in favour of the assessee and direct the AO to delete additions of Rs. 7,50,48,000/- for A.Y. 2010-11 and Rs. 5,20,17,982/- for A.Y. 2012-13 made by the Assessing Officer U/s 43B of I.T. Act on account of advance excise duty. (6) Ground 3 in Revenue's appeal for A.Y. 2010-11 and Ground 2 in Revenue's appeal for A.Y. 2012-13 pertain to disallowance of the provision for the Leave Encashment. The AO invoked Section 43B(f) of I.T. Act and made additions amounting to Rs. 1,80,75,136/- for A.Y. 2010-11 and Rs. 1,43,34,019/- for A.Y. 2012-13; on the ground that these amounts were not actually paid by the assessee till the due dates of filing of return. At the time of hearing before us, the Ld. DR submitted that this iss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....C)(iv) has exempted CSIR from payment of taxes for the AY 2010-11. The Ld. AR also filed relevant evidences in this regard as part of the Paper Books. After considering the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and on perusal of the evidences filed by the Ld. AR of the assessee and after taking into account the submissions made by the Ld. AR of the assessee, we are of the view that the claim made by the assessee is proper and sustainable. The order passed by Ld. CIT(A) on this issue is sound, proper and in accordance with law in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Ld. DR failed to make any case for us to warrant interference with the decision of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. Therefore, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue is confirmed and Ground 4 of Revenue's appeal for A.Y. 2010-11 is accordingly dismissed. (8) Ground 5 of Revenue's appeal for A.Y. 2010-11 and Ground 3 of Revenue's appeal for A.Y. 2012-13 pertain to the disallowances of loss claimed by the assessee, amounting to Rs. 32,79,998/- for A.Y. 2010-11 and Rs. 44,65,663/- for A.Y. 2012-13, On the running of Delhi Institute of Tourism and Travel Management ("DITTM", for short). In A.Y. 2010-11 the disallowance was made by ....