TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 20
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....esignated returns amounting to Rs. 435,11,79,406. (G. No. 3, 4 and 5 of the AM) 2.1. That without prejudice to the above, the Hon'ble CIT(A)/Ld. AO have erred in not allowing the benefit of deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act on the designated returns charged to tax under the head 'Income from Business or Profession'. (G. No. 6 of the AM) 3. That the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in holding that Appellant has earned income by way of revenue subsidy and making addition to the total income. (Ground Nos. 7, 8 & 9 of the AM) 3.1 .That without prejudice to the above, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in not allowing the benefit of deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act on the revenue subsidy charged to tax under the head 'income from business or profession'. (G. No. 10 of the AM) 4. That Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in treating the rental income as income from business and profession as against income from income from house property returned by the appellant. (Ground No. 12 of the AM) 5. That the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in upholding the disallowance on account of unpaid interest of Rs. 1,30,14,412 made by the Ld. AO u/s 43B without appreciating that the provisions of sect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing to tax the notional income on account of designated returns amounting to Rs. 427,88,52,969. (G. No. 11 and 12 of the AM) 5.1. That without prejudice to the above, the Ld. AO has erred in not allowing the benefit of deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act on the designated returns charged to tax under the head 'Income from Business or Profession'. (G. No. 13 of the AM) 6. That the Ld. AO has erred in disallowing Appellant's claim of depreciation u/s 32 of the Act alleging that Appellant is not the owner of the underlying land on which toll bridge is developed, and not following the judgement of the Hon'ble High court in Appellant's own case for AY 2005-06. (G. Nos. 14 and 15 of the AM) 7. That the Ld. AO has erred in holding that the Appellant has earned income by way of revenue subsidy and making addition to the total income. (G. Nos. 16, 17 and 19 of the AM) 7.1. That without prejudice to the above, the Hon'ble AO has erred in not allowing the benefit of deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act on the revenue subsidy charged to tax under the head 'income from business or profession'. (G. No. 18 of the AM) 8. That the Ld. AO has erred in not allowing the correc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llowance of deduction u/s 80-IA by the Ld. AO alleging that Appellant has failed to file the required audit report u/s 80-IA of the Act. (Ground No. 15 and 16 of the AM) 7. That the Appellant be allowed to carry forward the unabsorbed depreciation of the earlier years (Ground No. 17 of the AM) 8. That the levy of interest u/s 234B of the Act is erroneous and deserves to be deleted. (Ground Nos. 18 and 19 of the AM) 9. That the levy of interest u/s 234C of the Act is erroneous and deserves to be deleted. (Ground Nos. 20 and 21 of the AM) 10. The above grounds of appeal are independent and without prejudice to one another. (Ground No. 22 of the AM)" ITA No. 4418/Del/2018 ITA No. 4419/Del/2018 ITA No. 4420/Del/2018 Designated returns: 5. At the outset, both the parties fairy submitted that the issue stands covered by the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT in assessee's own case in ITA No. 4410/Del/2018 to 4417/Del/2018 from A.Y. 2006-07 to A.Y. 2011-12 vide order dated 08.08.2023. The relevant part of adjudication is as under: The issue: "DDTION ON ARREAR OF DESIGNATED RETURN Rs. 179.87 CRORES 31. The bo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the entire addition is on notional basis in contrast with the concept of real income. 47. It is pertinent to mention here that the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad vide its order in PIL No 60214 of 2012 dated 26.10.2016 held that Article 13 and Articled 14 of the Agreement are not valid and to be severed from the agreement. The Hon'ble Court had struck down the levy of fee for the reason that the assessee had already recovered the entire cost of the project on actual basis from collection of tolls, advertisement and rental income and, therefore, the assessee cannot collect the toll. 48. In this light, it can be safely concluded that the assessee did not earn 20% designated return on the cost of the project. Thus, addition on account of designated return amounting to Rs. 179.87 crores does not have any legs to stand and deserves to be deleted. We order accordingly." 6. In the absence of any change in the factual matrix and legal proposition, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed. Revenue subsidy: 7. At the outset, both the parties fairy submitted that the issue stands covered by the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT in assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....At the outset, both the parties fairy submitted that the issue stands covered by the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT in assessee's own case in ITA No. 4410/Del/2018 to 4417/Del/2018 from A.Y. 2006-07 to A.Y. 2011-12 vide order dated 08.08.2023. The relevant part of adjudication is as under: "54. In addition to the issues considered in A.Y 2006-07 ITA No. 4411/DEL/2018, in this year the assessee has challenged the disallowance of unpaid interest of Rs. 1,71,04,300/-. 55. The underlying facts in the issue are that the assessee issued deep discount bonds to the public on which interest was payable on maturity. The assessee had recognized the interest year on year as the liability accrues every year but however, is payable on maturity. During the year, the assessee debited such interest to the tune of Rs. 14.41 crores to the Profit and Loss account whereas it had paid Rs. 12.70 crores. 56. The Assessing Officer disallowed the difference of Rs. 1.71 crores for the reason that the same is unpaid. 57. In our understanding of the afore-mentioned facts, provisions of section 43B(e) of the Act apply only to loans/borrowings from any financial instit....