2016 (3) TMI 1410

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2012 passed for Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10. These appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 2. Firstly, we shall take up for adjudication of Revenue's appeal in ITA No.2338/Ahd/2012 for AY 2009-10:- The only effective ground raised in Revenue's appeal reads as under:- 1. The learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in restricting the addition made by the AO towards the estimate of 5% instead of 10% of expenses incurred for capital work-inprogress amounting to Rs. 1,65,37,529/-. 2.1. Briefly stated facts are that the case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny assessment and the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (herein....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... AY 2008-09 dated 07/12/2015. The ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that, in the said decision, the Tribunal at page No.19 in para- 25, the identical issue has been decided by the Coordinate Bench. 4. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that under the identical facts, the Coordinate Bench in ITA No.2286/Ahd/2011 and ITA No.2359/Ahd/2011(supra) has held as under:- "25. From above discussion, we can infer that no specific defect has been pointed out by the Assessing Officer in the books of accounts of assessee maintained as well as details of capital expenditure incurred for the capital work in progress incurred to projects ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... for AY 2009-10 is dismissed. 5. Now, we take up the assessee's appeal in ITA No.2279/Ahd/2012 for AY 2009-10. 5.1. Ground No.1 is general in nature needs no separate adjudication. 6. Ground No.2 is against the confirmation of disallowance of expenditure to the extent of 5%. The ld.Sr.counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Coordinate Bench in assessee's own case in ITA No.2286/Ahd/2011,wherein the Tribunal has sustained the disallowance to the extent of 1%. On the contrary, ld.Sr.DR supported the assessment. 7. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lumpsum disallowance to the extent of 1% employee cost, administrative expenses and other expenses. Thus, ground No.2 of the assessee's appeal is partly allowed. 9. Ground No.3 is disallowance made by invoking the provisions of section 14A of the Act. The Ld.Sr.counsel on behalf of the assessee submitted that the ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance u/s.14A of the Act, to the extent of Rs. 1,22,12,831/- ignoring voluntary disallowance made by the Appellant-assessee of Rs. 3,81,716/-. He submitted that the ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate, the fact that the assessee has huge own funds to the tune of Rs. 1867-crores as against investment of Rs. 35-crores. He submitted that interest, if any, allowed be restricted on loans which were....