TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (10) TMI 1605
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(P) Ltd., in as much as the facts of those cases are different from that of assessee's case. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has not appreciated the fact that assessee failed to establish that it was a developer as stipulated in the provision of section 80IA(4) of the Act; hence ineligible for claimed deduction. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) did not appreciate the fact that on being confronted by the Assessing officer during assessment proceedings for A.Yr. 2009-10 regarding eligibility for deduction U/s. 80IA(4), assessee voluntarily revised its claim of deduction from Rs. 15,33,36,705/- to Rs. 10,92,36,658/-. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has not appreciated the fact that survey action U/S.133A was conducted in assessee's case and CIT(A) confirmed the additional income declared on account of deficiencies in expenses, however, findings of survey party regarding deduction U/s.80IA(4) were not taken into account. Similar issue arose in revenue's appeal in ITA No. 1110/PN/2012 for A.Y. 2008-09. 2. In CO Nos.131 arising out of ITA No.1109 and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rticulars AY 2007-08 AY 2008-09 Income Returned Nil Nil Disallowance of claim u/s 80IA(4) Rs. 13,16,13,885 Rs..16,82,01,845 Rs..17,21,46,986- Rs..39,45,141 Additional income declared /disallowed towards deficiencies in expenses Rs..50,00,000 Rs. 50,00,000 (already shown in return filed) Addition out of sundry balance written off - Rs. 25,34,486 Addition towards difference in creditors a/cs - Rs. 39,41,997 Assessed income Rs. 13,66,13,885 * Rs. 17,46,78,328 3.1 Thus, Assessing Officer assessed the income of assessee at Rs. 17,45,28,249/- as against the above amount of Rs.17,46,78,328/- for A.Y 2008-09. The difference of Rs. 1,50,079/- was due to the fact that income before deduction under chapter VIA was considered at Rs. 17,19,96,907/- by Assessing Officer, whereas deduction claim in return was Rs. 17,21,46,986/. Similarly for A.Y. 2007-08 disallowed the claim u/s. 80IA(4) of Act of Rs. 13,16,13,885/-. 3.2 The matter was carried out before first appellate authority wherein assessee has relied upon following orders / judgments and contended that they were binding precedents to come to the conclusion that assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssue in favour of assessee. The assessee company is developing project of water supply and Lift Irrigation. Assessing Officer concluded that the assessee is merely a contractor and the work will be closely looked after or supervised by the contractee, when the work is closely supervised which means that assessee in a merely contractor. The Assessing Officer has also referred the contract received from JMC and preliminary condition of designing and drawing essential for developer is lacking and therefore the assessee company could not be called to be a developer. 3.5 CIT(A) held that the Assessing Officer has erred by misunderstanding the conditions eligible for deduction specified u/s 80IA(4). What is eligible for deduction u/s 80IA(4) is the profits and gains derived from development of infrastructure facility, such as road project, airport, port inland waterways, irrigation projects, water supply projects etc. In order to be eligible for deduction the development should be that of the infrastructure facility as a whole and not a part of it. 3.6 The appellant is developer/contractor of eligible infrastructure project. The whole infrastructure project of water supply....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essing Officer has disallowed deduction in respect of water supply and lift irrigation projects on the ground that the appellant was a contractor and work executed by it was covered under 'works contract' and hence deduction was not admissible in view of Explanation to Section 80IA introduced by Finance Act, 2007 and amended by Finance Act 2009 with retrospective effect from 01-04-2000. Assessing Officer has also disallowed the appellant's claim for deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act, holding that the appellant was not a developer but only a contractor. Further, according to the AO, the 'explanation' inserted below Sub-sec. 80IA(13) by the Finance Act, 2007 and later amended by Finance Act 2009, effective retrospectively from 01-04 2000 also made the appellant ineligible for deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act. Assessing Officer has given a detailed analysis of appellant's contract with Jalgaon Municipal Corporation (JMC) in the assessment order for A. Y. 2008-09 and also referred to the statement of Dy. Engineer JMC recorded on oath wherein he is stated to have told that the project with JMC was a "works contract". On the basis of the contract document and the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for A.Y. 2007-08. 1) On the facts and in law the Id. CIT(A) has erred in not allowing deduction u/s. 80IA(4) in respect of additional income of Rs.50 lacs offered to tax on adhoc basis towards unverifiable expenses. 2) On the facts and in law the Id. CIT(A) has erred in holding that additional income of Rs. 50 lacs offered to tax on adhoc basis towards unverifiable expenses has resulted into 'Income from Other Sources. 3) On the facts and in law the Id. CIT(A) has erred in holding that additional income of Rs. 50 lacs offered to tax on adhoc basis towards unverifiable expenses out of expenses debited in profit and loss account has not resulted into addition to business income. 5.1 As discussed above, the assessee has raised the issue of allowed deduction u/s. 80IA(4) in respect of additional income of Rs.50.00 lakhs offered to tax on adhoc basis towards unverifiable expenses. As regard the additional income of Rs.50.00 lakhs each for A.Y. 2007-08 and 2008-09 declared on account of deficiencies in expenses admitted by director of assessee's company during survey u/s. 133A on 20-10-2008 at business / office premises of the assessee. CIT(A) observed t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 4) On the facts and in law the Id. CIT(A) has erred in not allowing deduction u/s. 80IA(4) in respect of addition of Rs. 25,34,486/- on account of disallowance of advances given for business purposes written off. 5) On the facts and in law the Id. CIT(A) has erred in holding that addition of Rs. 25,34,486/- on account of disallowance of advances given for business purposes written off has resulted into 'Income from Other Sources". 6) On the facts and in law the Id. CIT(A) has erred in holding that addition of Rs. 25,34,486/- on account of disallowance of advances given for business purposes has not resulted into addition to business income. 6.1 First issue of claim of deduction u/s. 80IA(4) with regard to additional income of Rs. 50.00 lakhs is similar to that of A.Y. 2007-08. Facts being similar, so following same reasoning order of CIT(A) on this issue is upheld. 6.2 As regards addition of Rs. 25,34,486/- in A.Y. 2008-09, the CIT(A) found that said amount was shown as advances made in earlier year for the purpose of business. During the course of assessment proceedings, assessee however, could not substantiate its claim. He did not furnish any ....