TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 1039
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....000/- as per CBDT Circular No.3/2018 dated 08.08.2019 (for the assessment year 2007 - 08) and also against the order dated 28.12.2020 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bench Indore in M.A. No.28/Ind/2020 whereby application for recalling of the order dated 22.08.2019 has been dismissed. 02. The facts of the case in short are as under:- 2.1. The respondent is a private limited company duly incorporated and registered under the provisions of the Companies Act. The Company had constructed a road between Jhalawar - Indore, SH-1A on a contract awarded by the Government of Rajasthan. The contract was also included the work of construction, operation and maintenance of the road. The respondent filed an income tax return for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion 148 of the Income Tax Act was served upon the respondent for reopening the assessment for the assessment year 2007 - 08. The respondent was called upon to submit the return in response to the notice issued under Section 148. In response to the aforesaid notice, the respondent again submitted the earlier return stating that the same be treated as a return in response to the reassessment notice. 2.4. Vide order dated 25.02.2015, the assessing authority passed a final order withdrawing the deduction under Section 80IA to the extent of Rs. 79,53,563/- and Rs. 3,52,694/- and determined the total income of Rs. 86,05,920/- which has resulted in the issuance of demand of Rs. 34,92,440/-. 2.5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of the Department along with all other appeals. 2.7. Against the said order, the appellant filed an M.A. for recalling of the order dated 22.10.2019 on the ground that show-cause notice given to the respondent was based on the revenue audit objection and based on the scrutiny of the assessment of the record, therefore, pending appeal was not liable to be dismissed on the ground of monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- as specified in para-3 of the circular dated 08.08.2019. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that Clause 10 (c) of Circular No.03/2018 dated 11.07.2018 where on the revenue audit objection in the case has been accepted by the Department and the appeal was liable to be decided on its merit. The ITAT has considered t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....filing the appeal below Rs. 50,00,000/-. The income tax assessment of the respondent for the year 2007 - 08 was completed on 19.11.2009 allowing the deduction under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act. The case of the respondent came under scrutiny and notice dated 17.09.2008 was issued by the assessing authority under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act. Respondent submitted a reply raising various objections. Another notice was issued under Section 142(1) on 09.10.2009. The respondent submitted a reply to the said notice and the final assessment order dated 19.11.2009 was passed. Thereafter, another notice under Section 148 of IT Act stating that the respondent has wrongly claimed the deduction of Rs. 79,93,473/- under Section 80IA and th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2609.2006 and the machine has passed commercial check post, Khawasa (MP) on 05.10.2006. Therefore depreciation @ 7.5% of Rs. 3,52,692/- only was allowable in place of 15% of Rs. 7,05,386/- claimed by it. Further during the course of assessment proceedings, in its written submissions the assessee has admitted of being engaged in operation and maintenance of the above mentioned road and no evidence has been put forth that it was a new infrastructure facility. Also, as regards the Hydraulic Excavator, the assessee has submitted that it had pruchased the machine on 26.09.2009 and the machine has been put to use. So this does not go to substantiate the date when the machine has actually been put to use due to which depreciation @ 15% cannot be a....