TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 1804
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of depreciation on luxury cars of Rs. 21,36,823/- ignoring the fact that the Assessee could not furnish necessary evidence to show that the luxury cars were used wholly for business purpose to rule out personal use by directors of the company. 4. Whether, the assessee fulfills the requirement stipulated in Section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 once the conclusion reached is that it is contractor and not developer as stated in the sub-section? [Note : For this ground of appeal, the PCIT-1, Pune has accorded approval for deferment of appeal [As per provisions u/s. 158AB of the Act] u/s. 253(3) of the Act, before ITAT in accordance to decision of the collegiums dated 27.12.2023 (copy annexed)]. 5. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) was right in holding that even if the assessee is termed as contractor as he had developed, operated and maintained infrastructural facility and hence entitled to the deduction within the meaning of sub-section (4) of section 80IA? [Note : For this ground of appeal, the PCIT-1, Pune has accorded approval for deferment ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sesssee. Applying the provisions of section 14A r.w. Rule 8D(i) and 8D(ii), he made disallowance of Rs. 6,65,484/-. 7. In appeal, the ld. CIT (A) deleted the addition by holding as under: "8.1 This issue has been discussed by the A.O in para 8 of the order. The A.O found that the assessee had made investment in shares and mutual fund to the tune of Rs. 6,89,03,906 and that the assessee had incurred interest expenditure on borrowed funds amounting to Rs. 2,93,08,592/-. Accordingly, the A.O made a disallowance u/s 14A rwr 8D of Rs 6,65,484/-. The detailed submissions of the assessee have been reproduced in para 5 above. 8.2 Looking at the financials of the appellant which have been submitted in these proceedings, I find that the appellant has sufficient non-interest bearing funds as on 31.07.2017 namely Share capital Rs. 9,14,13,770/- and Reserves and Surplus Rs. 165,79,47,094/- totaling Rs 174,93,60,864 and hence there is merit in the contention of the appellant that the investment made are either from its own funds or from earlier investments. 8.3 The Hon'ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in case of CIT Vs. Reliance Utilitie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elf-made vouchers. 1. Communication expenses - Rs. 9,18,016/-. 2. Travelling & Conveyance expenses - Rs. 16,39,396/-. 3. Miscellaneous expenses - Rs. 90,18,859/-. 13. We find in appeal the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition by holding as under : "9.1 In para 9 of the assessment order, the A.O has made a 10 percent adhoc disallowance out of the communication expenses, travelling and conveyance expenses and miscellaneous expenses on the ground that some of the expenses were supported by self made vouchers which could not be verified. 9.2 The A.O has not given any specific details regarding the anomalies found even by way of sample vouchers or particulars. Considering the fact that the books of account of the assessee are audited, an adhoc disallowance without any details or particulars cannot be sustained. The addition is deleted and the Ground of Appeal is Allowed." 14. Aggrieved with such order of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 15. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that the assessee is a Private Limited company and it....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... contrary view than the view taken by the ld. CIT (A) on this issue. Accordingly, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 20. Ground of appeal No. 4 by the Revenue relates to the order of ld. CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance u/s. 80IA(4) of the Act. 21. After hearing both the sides, we find the AO disallowed the claim of deduction u/s. 80IA(4) of Rs. 2,66,92,291/- on the ground that the assessee was a contractor employed by the Government to execute a pre-determined work. In relation to work, the Government/Contractee continued to be the Developer which had not parted with the right to operate and maintain the facility which would come into existence after execution of contract. While doing so, the AO did not accept the contention of the assessee that similar issue has already been decided by the Tribunal in assessee's own case for the immediately preceding assessment years on the ground that the Revenue has filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court against the order of the Tribunal which is pending and therefore, to keep the matter alive, the AO made the disallowance. 22. We find the ld. CIT (A) following the order of the Tribunal in assesse....