TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (8) TMI 2006
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....development and construction and has constructed and sold commercial premises during the year under consideration." 2. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was correct in not appreciating the fact that the assessee shows in the Balance Sheet, the construction expenditure incurred as the Capital Work in Progress." 3. "on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee cannot escape its liability from offering its profits for taxation just because it has recorded its business activity in its books of account under different nomenclature." 4. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation was filed on 29.09.12 declaring total loss at Rs. 1,52,974/-. Later on, the case was selected for scrutiny and after serving statutory notices and seeking reply of the assessee, assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was passed by the AO thereby making additions on account of income from sale of LodhaSupremus building and in this way the total income of the assessee was computed. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. CIT(A) after considering the case of both the parties,partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Now before us, the revenue has preferred the present appeal by raising the above grounds. Ground No. 1 to 6 3. These grounds raised by the revenuerelate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (i) It is seen from the Balance sheet that the own funds of the assessee is Rs. 71,80,949/-. (ii) In the Balance sheet at liability side, the Appellant has shown "Contribution from Shareholder" (notes 3) at Rs. 57,82,28,767/- and at assets side the same amount is shown as "Capital Work-in-Progress" (note 7), which means that the work in progress has been carried out through the funds of the shareholders (i.e. SNCML) (iii) It was also seen from note 6 of the balance sheet that the Appellant has shown an amount 32,59,97,012/- as "Other Current Liabilities" and at the assets side at 13 under the head "Other Current Assets" the assessee has shown the amount of Rs. 32,81,92,677/- as "Contribution receivable from Shareholder",....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the various Applicant. In the said list, at serial number 16 the name of SNCML is mentioned wherein it has disclosed the car parking received from the project World crest and World One. The facts categorically stated by the ITSC is that the applicants is not in receipts of car parking money in case of commercial projects is recorded at paragraph 13.3 and 13.1 of ITSC's order. Since, LodhaSupremus is a commercial project, no car parking has been offered on this project. (viii) While dealing with the issue of On money in paragraph 14 of the ITSC's order, the Hon'ble ITSC, at sub-para 14 3, has stated the facts explained by the applicants that it has not charged any on money in respect of the commercial projects However,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r: COMPUTATION OF INCOME AND TAX Shreeniwas Cotton Mills Limited - PAN: AAAIC9416R Amount (AY 2012-13) Income offered in SOF 36,26,97,944/- Addl income on account of foreign expenses 77,52,937/- Total 37,04,50,881/- Less: Reduction in Brought forward losses 15,98,17,321/- Taxable income 53,02,68,202/- Tax on total income 17,20,45,518/- Interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C 2,45,15,795/- Tax liability after interest 19,65,61,314/- Less: Prepaid taxes 16,05,02,088/- Tax liability 3,60,59,226/- 3.11.4. In view of the above facts in the present case, it is clear that the assessment year 2012-13 in the case of SNCML was covered in the proceeding before the ITSC. The ITSC has a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stated above, the Appellant has no employee to look after its business activity as there is no cost debited in the-financial statement on account of salary. However, the Appellant has claimed the loss of Rs. 1,52,974/, in. the return of income. As stated in detail in above stated paragraph, the Appellant Company has not done any activity except construction on behalf of its shareholders. As held above, the Appellant has acted merely as a SPV for the construction of "LodhaSupremus" out of funds provided by the shareholders. It has not recorded any revenue in its audited financial statement as all the revenue pertaining to work carried out by the Appellant are recorded in the books of shareholders which is already taxed in the case o....