TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 1076
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 2018-2019. ITA.No.872/Hyd./2024 - A.Y. 2017-2018 : Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee M/s. Thrissur Expressway Limited, is a Special Purpose Vehicle ["SPV"] in corporated for the purpose of Design, Engineering, Finance, Procurement, Construction, Operation and Maintenance of "6 Laning of Vadakanchery- Thrissur section of NH-47 from 240.00 KM" in the State of Kerala from existing 2 lane on "Design, Fund, Operate and Transfer basis" under concession agreement dated 24.08.2009 with the National Highways Authority of India [in short "NHAI"]. 2.1. For the impugned assessment year 2017-2018, it filed it's return of income on 29.10.2017 declaring NIL income and claimed refund of Rs. 3,70,44,341/- and further filed revised return of income on 10.07.2018 declaring Rs. NIL income by claiming refund of Rs. 3,67,35,480/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS. The Assessing Officer issued statutory notices u/sec.143(2) and 142(1) to the assessee calling the assessee to furnish various details as per CASS etc., The Authorised Representative of the Assessee appeared before the Assessing Officer from time to time and filed the requisite details. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 46A of I.T.Rules, 1962 without providing any opportunity to assessing officer. 2. On facts & law of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the ground of the assessee against the addition made of Rs. 32,79,23,520/- being 8% of gross receipts of Rs. 409,90,44,000/- as per provisions of section 28 of the 3. Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. On facts & law of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the total receipt of Rs. 409,90,44,000/- as capital receipt instead of revenue receipt. 4. On facts & law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in not enhancing the income shown by the assessee to the tune of Rs. 183.67 Cr. i.e. grants received from NHAI 179.90 Cr. and Utility Shifting Work Rs. 3.76 Cr. 5. Appellant prays for other grounds/grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing. 4. The Learned DR on the other hand, vehemently relied on the order of the Assessing Officer. He submitted that the Assessing Officer estimated the income of the assessee @ 8% of the gross receipts which is common in line of construction activities and based on judicial precedents and principles. He submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings the assessee did not prod....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... India. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that there were variations between gross receipts as per 26AS vis-à-vis the gross receipts credited to P & L A/c. In view of non-submission of books of accounts, the Assessing Officer proposed to estimate the income of the assessee @ 8% i.e. Rs. 32,79,23,520/- on the gross receipts of Rs. 409,90,44,000/- and made addition u/sec.28 of the Act. In an appeal before the learned CIT(A), noted that the Assessing Officer has taken the cost of construction as receipt which is a matching entry in P & L A/c to balance the expenditure incurred on on-going road construction work and, therefore, noted that when there is no income earned, the question of estimating the income @ 8% does not arise. He, accordingly, deleted the impugned addition of Rs. 32,79,23,250/- made by the Assessing Officer. We find there is a force in the submissions of the Learned Counsel for the Assessee to the effect that the CBDT vide it's Circular No.09/2014 dated 23.04.2014 made it crystal clear that where an assessee claimed any deduction out of initial cost of development of infrastructure facility of roads/highways under BOT pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see does not arise. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the order of the learned CIT(A) and accordingly we confirm his order. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 7. In the result, ITA.No.872/Hyd./2024 of the Revenue is dismissed. ITA.No.873/Hyd./2024 - A.Y. 2018-2019 : 8. In the assessment year 2018-2019 [ITA.No.873/Hyd./2024] the Assessing Officer estimated the income of the assessee @ 8% at Rs. 14,36,28,439/- on the gross receipts of Rs. 179,53,55,488/- besides making addition of Rs. 38,41,46,752/- u/sec.40(a)(ia) and addition of Rs. 37,97,29,195/- u/sec.43B of the Act. 9. Same order to follow for the impugned assessment year 2018-2019 with respect to the estimation of income @ 8% on the gross receipts. The order of the learned CIT(A) in deleting the addition on this ground is confirmed. The grounds raised by the Revenue on this issue is dismissed. 10. Similarly, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 38,41,46,752/- being 30% of expenses for non-depositing of TDS before due date. The learned CIT(A) noted that the assessee has capitalized all the expenses incurred in construction of high-way and no expenses are claimed during the imp....