2020 (10) TMI 269

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....6-17. 2. 2. The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal : "1. The order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dis missing the appeal is contrary to law, erroneous and unsustainable on the facts of the case. 2. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 88,11,291 added back by the Assessing Officer in the assessment. 3. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in adding the difference in the amount of Rs. 11,31,13,700 being TDS effected by M/s. Dugar Housing Ltd. and the actual receipts of Rs. 10,43,02,409 considered by the assessee in the return as understatement of receipts. 4. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....essee over the period of contract and there is no shortfall between the income reflected in form 26AS and that offered by the assessee before the completion of the project and hence the arbitrary addition made is to be deleted. 9. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) further failed to appreciate that the TDS credit taken by the assessee is in line with the actual income shown in the financials and the balance of credit had been carried forward to the later years when the income has been offered and hence the addition is uncalled for and cannot be sustained. 10. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the assessee having provided the entire basis of working out the income on the project comple....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Housing Limited. The income of the said project was offered to tax following the percentage of completion method. However, the Assessing Officer turn downed the sub mission pointing out that the assessee is only a land owner. Form 26AS clearly shows the sale of immovable property, accordingly tax was deducted under section 194A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") Rs. 11,31,13,700. 4. Being aggrieved by the above additions, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer (AO). 5. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the appellant is in appeal before us in the pres....