TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (2) TMI 1225
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... made by the Learned Assessing Office ['Ld. AO'] of the deduction claimed under Section 80-IA of the Act amounting to Rs. 2,75,52,02,630 in respect of the contracts entered with non- government entities without appreciating the fact that the said contract is originally awarded by the government to these parties. 2. The Hon'ble CIT(A)-53 has erred in partly upholding the disallowance made by the Ld. AO of the deduction claimed under Section 80-1A of the Act amounting to Rs. 2,83,68,967 in respect of the contracts awarded by Government or local or statutory authorities for developing and/or operating and/or maintaining a new infrastructure facility. 3. The Hon'ble CIT(A)-53 has erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in disallowing Rs. 1,97,740 under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of delay in depositing contribution received from employees to the employee's contribution fund after the due date under respective Act but before due date of filing return of income. 4. The Hon'ble CIT(A)-53 has erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in not restricting the levy of the dividend distributed tax on the dividend distributed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC). iv. disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act of Rs.1,97,740/- was made as employees' contribution was paid beyond due dates prescribed by respective acts 07. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the appeal was filed before the learned CIT (A), who passed an order on 2nd March, 2023, i. Regarding disallowance under Section 14A of the Act of Rs.57,490/- in the normal computation of income as well as in the book profit, was deleted. ii. With respect to the deduction under Section 80IA of the Act, the learned CIT (A) noted that he asked the assessee to submit the facts of the claim completely with respect to the scope of work, work done and whether the assessee is merely a sub-contractor or developer. The assessee did not furnish the complete details before the learned Assessing Officer on examination of certain documents; he found that assessee is not a developer but a contractor. He also noted that the assessee has got the contract from private company who in turn were awarded contract by the Government and as the assessee has not a developer in accordanc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y Terminal Pvt. Ltd. 15,44,06,108 3. 38115DM Nhava Sheva India Gateway Terminal Pvt. Ltd. 2,45,98,466 4. 32214AX Madhucon Project Ltd. 47,48,052 5. 36515AX Oriental Structural Engineers Pvt. Ltd. 29,23,298 Total 2,67,10,44,317 2. The CIT(A) has erred in partly upholding the disallowance made by the AO of the deduction claimed under Section 80-IA of the Act amounting to Rs. 2,83,68,967 in respect of the contracts awarded by following Government or local or statutory authorities for developing and / or operating and / or maintaining a new infrastructure facility. Sr. No. Project No. Name of the client Amount (Rs.) 1. 35314AX Kolkata North Division 1,11,37,820 2. 41616AX Ircon International Ltd 59,04,074 3. 41916BS Agartala Municipal Corporation Sardar Agartala 82,08,585 4. 41516BA Airport Director, Airport Authority of India 31,18,488 " 09. On this ground, assessee also made a prayer for admission of the additional evidence under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules. In the application, assessee submitted that assessee has claimed deduction of Rs.28,9....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ontested that these additional evidences should not be admitted at this stage and even otherwise these additional evidences are irrelevant for the reason that :- i. As assessee has failed to submit the same before the learned Assessing Officer and before the learned CIT (A), despite adequate opportunities provided ii. These additional evidences are not relevant at all to decide the issue as assessee is merely a subcontractor iii. This is not the reason for which deduction u/s 80 IA is denied. iv. Assessee is merely a works contractor and has not entered any contract with government, which are placed in additional evidences, which is main condition of 80 IA. 012. We have carefully considered the contentions mentioned in application under Rule 29 of ITAT Rules, 1963. It is apparent that in paragraph no.7.3, the learned CIT (A) specifically asked the assessee to produce the contract copies to ascertain whether the claim of the assessee falls within the parameter laid down under Section 80IA of the Act or not. Undoubtedly, assessee failed to produce the same before the lower authorities. Before us, it is submitted that assessee has submitted the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....evidences, we restore the issue before the learned CIT (A) to examine these evidences and decide the issue of allowability of claim of deduction under Section 80IA of the Act with respect to the additional evidences. This is also so for the reason that the disallowance is confirmed for one of the reasons being non-production of the contracts. The learned CIT (A) may examine additional evidences, look at their relevance in claim of deduction of the assessee and decide the issue whether the assessee fulfils conditions under Section 80IA (4) of the Act or not. Accordingly, the ground no.1 and 2 to the extent indicated above are allowed. 016. Ground no.3 is with respect to the disallowance of Rs.1,97,740/- under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of delay in depositing employee's contribution beyond the due dates prescribed under the respective Act. This ground is already decided by the learned CIT (A) against the assessee relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In absence of any argument by the learned Authorized Representative, same is dismissed. 017. Ground no.4 is with respect to the dividend distribution tax paid by the company at the rate of 20.36% un....