TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 825
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ommissioner of Income Tax-(3)(2)(1), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the Revenue) by filing aforesaid cross appeals sought to set aside the impugned orders dated 18.10.2018, 27.02.2017, 01.09.2017, 01.09.2017 & 13.12.2018 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] qua the assessment year 2008-09, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 respectively on the grounds inter-alia that :- Grounds of Assessee ITA No.521/M/2019 (A.Y. 2008-09) "1. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case the Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in assessing the income of the Assessee at Rs. 14,52,17,933/- as against Nil as per return filed by Assessee. 2. That CIT(A)/Assessing Officer has failed to appreciate that interest of Rs. 18,45,46,518/- is earned on fixed deposits invested for short period of time and have not been made out of the surplus funds and it has been verified by the AO but he made an error in restricting the amount to Rs. 3,93,27,585/-. 3. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case the AO/CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in restricting the treatment as business income to Rs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 1966 & the development charges collected by virtue of section 1240 of MRTP Act, 1966 is for specific purpose & the same shall be utilized as per the provisions of Section 1241 of MRTP Act, 1966. 5. That the addition/disallowance made are illegal, unjust and bad in law and are based on mere surmises and conjunctures and the same cannot be justified by any material on record hence the entire addition should be deleted. That the additions/disallowances made are also highly excessive. 6. That the evidence filed and materials available on record have not been properly construed and judiciously interpreted, hence the addition/ disallowance made is uncalled for. 7. The Appellant craves leave to add, to alter to amend the above Ground of Appeal at the time of hearing." ITA No.522/M/2019 (A.Y. 2015-16) "1. The CIT (A) has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. collected towards Rs. 3,48,60,686/- development charges from various lessees / unit holders in MIHAN area at Nagpur on the ground that the receipt is a revenue receipt. 2. That in view of the facts and in the circumstances of the case, CIT (A) has erred in not appreciating that the Gra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reciating that such deduction u/s. 80IAB had already been allowed to the assessee by the Assessing Officer in his order giving effect to the ITAT's order dated 24.08.2017, thereby resulting in double relief to the assessee? 3. The appellant prays that for this and other reasons it is submitted that the order of the CIT(A) on the grounds be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 4. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any grounds or add a new ground which may be necessary." ITA No.3704/M/2017 (A.Y 2012-13) ""1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in holding the income of 0.3, 9 ,28,138/ being Interest on Advance given to Developers as 'Income from Business' eligible for deduction u/s. 80IAB of the I.T.Act, 1961 instead of 'Income from Other Sources' as held by the Assessing Officer without appreciating the fact that the said income does not have any nexus with the business of the assessee. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in holding the income of Rs. 1,62,44,191/- being Interest on Advance giv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ear's income for the disallowance u/s. 14A of the I.T. Act, 1961 to be triggered. 7. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance u/s. 14A to the book profit u/s. 115JB of the I.T. Act, 1961 ignoring the decisions of the Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai in the case of M/s. Viraj Profiles Ltd. in ITA No.4439/Mum/2013 dated 21/10/2015 46 ITR(T) 626 (Mumbai - Trib.)/[2016] and in Ferani Hotels Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.857/Mum/2013 dated 17/11/2014. 8. The appellant prays that the order of CIT(A) on the above ground be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 9. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary." ITA No.7258/M/2017 (A.Y. 2013-14) "1a. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was right in restoring the issue to the file of the AO with direction to ascertain whether FDs are made out of the surplus funds or out of the borrowed funds of the assessee and ignoring the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. v/s. CIT (1987), ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... per Rule 8D of I.T. Rules, 1962 as held in the order of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of M/s Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd.? 6. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 17,83,130/- u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D since no dividend income is received without appreciating the fact that section 14A provides for disallowance of expenditure incurred in relation to and not incurred for earning such exempt income which was later clarified in the CBDT Circular No.5 of 2014 dated 11/2 / 2014 laying down the condition that it is not necessary that exempt income should necessarily be included in a particular year's income for the disallowance u/s. 14A of the I.T. Act, 1961 to be triggered? 7. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance u/s. 14A to the book profit u/s. 115JB of the I.T. Act, 1961 ignoring the decisions of the Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai in the case of M/s. Viraj Profiles Ltd. in ITA 4439/Mum/2013 dated 21/10/2015 - 46TR(T) 626 (Mumbai - Trib. )/ [2016] and in Ferani Hotels Pvt. Ltd. in IT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the AO with direction to ascertain whether FDs are made out of the surplus funds or out of the borrowed funds of the assessee and if so, the interest from FDs should be held as business incme and should be included while allowing deduction u/s. 80IAB of the I.T.Act, 1961. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was right in directing the AO to allow deduction u/s. 80IAB of the I.T.Act, 1961 on interest on Fixed Deposits relying on its own decision in the case of the assessee for A.Yrs. 2011-12 & 2012-13 without appreciating the fact that for the year under consideration, the assessee had neither claimed any deduction u/s. 80IAB of the I.T.Act, 1961 and nor filed the Form No.10CCB claiming such deduction while filing the return of income. 3a Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Hon. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the interest of Rs. 2,13,16,880/- received by the assessee from Developers, on advances, was business income and deduction u/s. 80IAB was allowable on the same as per provisions of the I.T.Act, 1961? 3b Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d as per Rule 8D of I.T.Rules, 1962 as held in the order of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of M / s Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. 7. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 12,60,575/- u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D since no dividend income is received without appreciating the fact that section 14A provides for disallowance of expenditure incurred in relation to and not incurred for earning such exempt income which was later clarified in the CBDT Circular No.5 of 2014 dated 11/2 / 2014 laying down the condition that it is not necessary that exempt income should necessarily be included in a particular year's income for the disallowance u/s. 14A of the I.T.Act, 1961 to be triggered. 8. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance u/s. 14A to the book profit u/s. 115JB of the I.T.Act, 1961 ignoring the decisions of the Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai in the case of M/s Viraj Profiles Ltd. in ITA 4439 / Mum / 2013 dated 21/10 / 2015 - 46 ITR(T) 626 [Mumbai- Trib.)/ [2016] and in Ferani Hotels Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.85....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the file of the AO with direction to ascertain whether FDs are made out of the surplus funds or out of the borrowed funds of the assessee and if so, the interest from FDs should be held as Business Income and should be included while allowing deduction u/s. 80IAB of the Income Tax Act 1961? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was right in directing the AO to allow deduction u/s. 80IAB of the I.T.Act, 1961 on interest on Fixed Deposits relying on its own decision in the case of the assessee for A.Yrs. 2011-12 without appreciating that for the year under consideration, the assessee had neither claimed any deduction u/s. * 0.8IAB of the I.T.Act, 1961 and nor filed the Form No.10CCB claiming such deduction while filing the return of income? 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld.CIT(A) was right in holding that the interest of Rs. 2,13,94,828/- received by the assessee from Developers, on advances, was business income and deduction u/s. 80IAB was allowable on the same as per provisions of the I.T.Act, 1961? 5. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 12,01,617/- u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D without appreciating the fact that the amount of disallowance u/s. 14A of the I.T.Act, 1961 has to be computed as per Rule 8D of I.T.Rules, 1962 as held in the order of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of M / s . Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd? 11. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 12,01,617/- u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D since no dividend income is received without appreciating the fact that section 14A provides for disallowance of expenditure incurred in relation to and not incurred for earning such exempt income which was later clarified in the CBDT Circular No.5 of 2014 dated 11/02/2014 laying down the condition that it is not necessary that exempt income should necessarily be included in a particular year's income for the disallowance u/s. 14A of the I.T.Act, 1961 to be triggered? 12.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance u/s. 14A to the book profit u/s. 115JB of the I.T.Act, 1961 ignoring ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the order of CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of Assessing Officer be restored. 16. The appellant craves leave to amend, alter, delete or add grounds which may be necessary." 3. Assessee by moving applications under rule 11 & rule 27 of the ITAT Rules sought to raise the additional grounds in its own appeal for A.Y. 2012-13 & 2015-16 in ITA No.3682/M/2017 & in ITA No.522/M/2019 respectively and in Revenue's appeal to counter the ground Nos.4, 9 & 13 raised by the Revenue in its appeals for A.Y. 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-16, which are identical in all the aforesaid assessment years and read as under: "Without prejudice, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the AO/CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law, in not appreciating that the grant received during the year from the state government is capital receipt, not liable to tax, as the assessee is a state by itself or a surrogate of the state or an agent, performing the functions of the state and/or on behalf of the state of Maharashtra" On the grounds inter-alia that although the assessee has not filed appeal against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) allowing the ground of the asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ies to the appeal, perused the orders passed by the Ld. Lower Revenue Authorities and documents available on record in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable thereto. Ground Nos.1 & 2 of ITA No.3704/M/2017 for A.Y. 2012-13, Ground Nos.3 & 4 of ITA No.7258/M/2017 for A.Y. 2013-14, Ground Nos.4a & 4b of ITA No.7259/M/2017 for A.Y. 2014-15 & Ground Nos.4, 5, 6 & 7 of ITA No.798/M/2019 for A.Y. 2015- 16 of Revenue's appeals 8. The assessee company has filed return of income for A.Y. 2012-13 declaring total loss of Rs. 16,70,819/-. The assessee earned interest on the advances received from the developers and contractors to facilitate the execution of work entrusted to them. Declining the contentions raised by the assessee the AO considered the interest received on advances to the developer/contractors under the head "income from other sources" and proceeded to hold that the said income does not have nexus with the business of the assessee, hence not eligible for deduction under section 80IAB. 9. However, the Ld. CIT(A) by following the order passed by the Tribunal in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2008-09 proceeded to hold that "the interest recei....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in part for statistical purpose." 11. In view of what has been discussed above and following the order passed by the Tribunal in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2008-09 (supra), we are of the considered view that the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly considered interest earned by the assessee company from developers and contractors, being eligible for deduction under section 80IAB. So finding no illegality or perversity in the impugned findings, the grounds raised by the Revenue in Ground Nos.1 & 2 of ITA No.3704/M/2017 for A.Y. 2012-13, Ground Nos.3 & 4 of ITA No.7258/M/2017 for A.Y. 2013-14, Ground Nos.4a & 4b of ITA No.7259/M/2017 for A.Y. 2014-15 & Ground Nos.4, 5, 6 & 7 of ITA No.798/M/2019 for A.Y. 2015-16 are hereby dismissed. Ground No.3 of ITA No.3704/M/2017 for A.Y. 2012-13 (Revenue's appeal) 12. The assessee company has received an amount of Rs. 1,25,95,074/- as lease rent and claimed the same for deduction under section 80IAB of the Act, which is disallowed by the AO on the ground that the said income does not have any nexus with the business of the assessee. However, the Ld. CIT(A) overturned the findings returned by the AO hol....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the nature of grant in aid towards the repair and maintenance of airports, which the Ld. CIT(A) has treated as the revenue receipt. This issue is no longer res-integra having already been decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee in its own case for A.Y. 2010-11 in ITA No.3072/M/2014 by returning following findings: "19. On appraisal of the facts and circumstances, we find that the assessee has been treated as agent of Government and the income of the assessee if any was treated as income of the Government which stand deposited in the consolidated fund of the State. The assessee placed reliance upon the decision of Kolkata High Court in case of Prl. CIT Vs. The State Fisheries Development Corporation ITA No. 19 of 2017 with GA 413 of 2017 in which the grant has been treated has capital receipt. The similar view has been taken by the Delhi High Court in case titled as CIT Vs. Handicrafts and Handlooms Exports Corporation of India Limited cited as (2014)360 ITR 130 (Delhi). The instant case also Maharashtra Government release the grant in favour of assessee for the repairs and maintenance of airports . It is if any capital in nature and is not liable to be considere....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 20. The Ld. D.R. for the Revenue challenging the impugned findings returned by the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs. 2,36,75,00,000/- (for A.Y. 2012-13) being grant-in-aid received by the assessee towards land acquisition/rehabilitation of PAP by holding the same as capital in nature on the ground that the assessee company is a developer and the land acquired/developed by the grants in question are part of inventory/work in progress, hence revenue in nature and relied upon the decision rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. (1997) 228 ITR 253. 21. However, on the other hand, the Ld. A.R. for the assessee challenging the impugned findings in holding grant-in-aid received by the assessee company as capital in nature contended inter-alia that since the grant-in-aid held by the assessee company for payment of compensation towards purchase of land to the land owner, rehabilitation of the PAP and for infrastructure development of airports in the notified area the same is not income of the assessee company; that the assessee company being a state is executing the work of development of airports, repair and maintenance of airports as an arm o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i) that the assessee company being a special planning authority is carrying out its activities as an agent of the Government of Maharashtra as per section 113 of the MRTP Act. ii) that the assessee company as a special planning authority is constituted to carry out the work of developing and disposing of land in the notified area as an agent of the State Government. iii) that under section 114(2) of the MRTP Act the assessee company is empowered to exercise its power only after obtaining consent and only in the manner as directed by the Statement Government and cannot function independently. iv) that all the development proposals of the assessee company are sent to the state government for approval as required under section 115 of the MRTP Act. v) that the assessee company is required to submit the timely reports/returns etc. to the state government from time to time as required under section 155 of the MRTP Act. vi) that under section 160 of the MRTP Act a state government can dissolve the special planning authorities and upon dissolution its properties, the liabilities, undischarge functions shall get transferred to the state governmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....211 of 2009 (supra) vide its order dated 07.11.2009 held that "acquisition of land on behalf of the state government at the cost of state government by CIDCO appointed as new town development authority under sub section 3A of section 113 is doing the work of developing and disposing of the land in the area as an agent of the state government. So the appointment of CIDCO being under section 3A of section 113 of the MRTP Act the CIDCO acts as an agent of the state government". xi) that when we apply the ratio of the decision rendered by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Percival Joseph Pareira (supra) to the case at hand the assessee company is also appointed as a town planning authority under sub section 3A of section 113 of MRTP Act for acquisition of land for development of airports, repair and maintenance of airports and for rehabilitation of the project affected persons (POP), for infrastructure development of airports in the notified area as an agent of the state. The assessee company carries out all the activities for and on behalf of the state government and after development and completion of the project the entire property vests in the state government. The enti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ground No.9 of ITA No.7259/M/2017 for A.Y. 2014-15 & ground No.13 of ITA No.798/M/2019 for A.Y. 2015-16 of Revenue are dismissed and ground Nos.1 & 3 and additional ground No.1, 2 & 3 raised by the assessee in ITA No.3682/M/2017 for A.Y. 2012-13 (Assessee's appeal), additional ground No.1, 2 &3 raised by the assessee in ITA No.7258/M/2017 for A.Y. 2013-14 (Revenue's appeal), additional ground No.1, 2 & 3 raised by the assessee in ITA No.7259/M/2017 for A.Y. 2014-15 (Revenue's appeal) of assessee's grounds are allowed. Ground Nos.2 & 4 and Additional ground No.1 in ITA No.3682/M/2017 & Ground Nos.1, 2 & 4 and additional ground No.1 in ITA No.522/M/2019 (both assessee's appeals) for A.Y. 2012-13 & 2015-16 respectively 26. The assessee company received an amount of Rs. 4,38,97,624/- and Rs. 3,48,60,686/- on account of development charges levied by the assessee company under section 124J of Maharashtra Regional Town Planning (MRTP) Act, 1966. The Ld. CIT(A) by passing impugned order held the receipt on account of development charges as business receipt and liable to be taxed by returning following (of A.Y. 2012-13) findings: "5.9.9 Now coming to amount of Rs. 4,38,97,624....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the grants-in-aid provided by the state government and as such is also a statutory function. Because without developing the land purchases with grant-in-aid received from the state government, which ultimately vests in the state government the purpose of providing public amenities as prescribed under the scheme of the Act cannot be fulfilled. In these circumstances, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in treating these development charges which are inextricably linked to the development of the project under the scheme, akin to the lease rental/usage charges. So the findings returned by the Ld. CIT(A) are hereby set aside and the AO is directed to delete the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, Ground Nos.2 & 4 and Additional ground No.1 in ITA No.3682/M/2017 & Ground Nos.1, 2 & 4 and additional ground No.1 in ITA No.522/M/2019 (both assessee's appeals) for A.Y. 2012-13 & 2015-16 respectively are hereby allowed. Ground Nos.5, 6 & 7 of ITA No.3704/M/2017 for A.Y. 2012-13 of Revenue's appeal; Ground Nos.5 & 6 of ITA No.7258/M/2017 for A.Y. 2013-14 of Revenue's appeal; Ground Nos.6 & 7 of ITA No.7259/M/2017 for A.Y. 2014-15 of Revenue's appeal; Ground Nos.1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned interest on fixed deposits made with various banks and these fixed deposits were not made out of surplus funds. The AO, declining the contentions raised by the assessee that the impugned interest on fixed deposits is inextricably linked to the main business activity of the company so as to treat the same as business income, proceeded to classify the same as income from other sources. 33. However, the Ld. CIT(A) by following his own order passed in A.Y. 2011-12 & 2012-13 in assessee's own case directed the AO to verify the "dates of receipts of grants and advances received from long term lease of land and correlate receipts of dates of fixed deposits to the extent verify and correlate to receipt of the grant/advances from the business activities and as such interest be included for claiming deduction under section 80IAB of the Act". The Ld. A.R. for the assessee contended that this issue has been decided by the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2008-09 in ITA No.1223/M/2013. 34. We have perused the order (supra) passed by the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal which is on identical issue. The operative part of the order is extracted for ready....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o be applied for the purpose of maintaining fire brigade which is also mandatory for the assessee company to maintain in compliance to section 25 of chapter VII of MFPLSM Act, 2006, section 11 of the MFPLSM Act, 2006 also empowers the assessee company to levy fire services fee on all owners of various buildings within the area of its jurisdiction, the same cannot be treated as receipt of revenue in nature. Since the entire project was being executed by the assessee as a stated owned company fire services fees which was not received in the ordinary course of business and was strictly applied for the purpose of maintaining fire brigade is like development charges collected by the assessee company and as such is inextricably linked with the success of airport project being executed by the assessee company on behalf of the state government and as such it cannot be treated as income. So the same is ordered to be treated as revenue in nature as claimed by the assessee. So ground No.3 in ITA No.522/M/2019 for A.Y. 2015-16 of assessee's appeal is allowed. Ground Nos.5 to 7 in ITA No.522/M/2019 for A.Y. 2015-16 (Assessee's appeal) 38. Ground Nos.5 to 7 are general in nature, hence nee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y Commission (MERC) which is mandated to promote competition, efficiency and economy in the power sector and to regulate traffic of power generation, transmission and distribution and to protect the interests of the consumers and other shareholders. MADC after getting the license, started purchasing power through IEX from 22.11.2014 on a day-ahead basis and supplied power to the consumers in MIHAN SEZ area. Since, traffic determination for electric supply is done by MERC, MERC ruled that the traffic approved for the respective consumer categories of MSEDCL would be the ceiling traffic for the MIHAN SEZ area. MADC purchased electricity IEX &LLyods during 2014-15. However, while distributing powers to consumers, there are transmission, distribution & scheduling losses. As per the appellant and the details filed, the energy received is 9.62 Million unit (MU) and energy supplied is 6.90 MU, therefore nearly 2.72 MU loss of energy on account of transmission, distribution & Scheduling loss is there. 3.10.7 I find that the appellant has submitted the copy of lease agreement along with other documentary evidence placed on record in support of the claim that the expenditure incurre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tallation capacity of water supply which has become the main cause of losses. If the sales are low, then, automatically your profit decreases/ losses increase as the raw material purchases have been underutilized. However, certainly cost has been incurred to procure the same. It is the simplest concept in term of any business or accounting. Further, there are other expenses which further lower the profit. It is not the intention on the part of the any prudent businessman to sell less product deliberately or anything like that so as to decrease its own profit. Also, in the instant case, the appellant is a Government of Maharashtra Company. So, the credibility of accounting cannot be doubted. Therefore, I am of the view that addition on account of deficit of Rs. 3.55,42,101/-in respect of water supply activity has no merits at all and deserves to be deleted. It is felt that as far as these two additions are concerned, the AO has tried to step into the shoes of the appellant company, that too, a Government of Maharashtra one, the credibility of whose accounts are one notch above the private ones. 3.10.9 In view of the above discussion, additions on account of deficit of Rs. 76,32,135/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....judice, on facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. Assessing Officer has erred in law in not allowing set off of unabsorbed depreciation against the assessed income. 3) Without prejudice, on facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. Assessing Officer has erred in law in not increasing / restating the "Work in Progress" to the extent of addition of interest income of Rs. 14,52,17,933/- made by the ld. Assessing Officer under the head 'Income From Other Sources' which was reduced by the assessee from Capital Work in Progress in its Balance Sheet. General 4) The above grounds of appeal are without prejudice to one another and the original grounds of appeal and the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, delete or modify any of the above grounds of appeal." 44. The assessee company by moving an application sought to raise the additional grounds on the ground that the same are purely legal grounds and can be raised at any stage of the proceedings and relied upon the decisions rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) and in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....levant provision is extracted as under: "153. Time limit for completion of assessment, reassessment and recomputation (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in user-sections (1) and an order Nof fresh assessment for fresh order under section 92CA, as the cue may be,] in pursuance of an order under section 254 or section 263 or section 264, setting aside or cancelling an assessment, [or an order under section 92CA as the case may be,] may be made at any time before the expiry of nine months from the end of the financial year in which the order under section 254 received by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or 10 [Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, as the case may be,] or, as the case may be, the order under section 263 or section 264 is passed by the "[Principal Chief Commissioner of Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, as the case may be]: (5) Where effect to an order under section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 is to be given by the Assessing Officer [or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,]....