Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2012 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (12) TMI 635 - AT - Income TaxCost of generator and transformer - miscellaneous structures v/s electrical equipment CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- The CBDT vide Instruction No. 3 of 2011 dated 9.2.2011 has revised the monitory limit for filing the appeals by the Department before the ITAT as raised to Rs. 3 lakhs & tax effect in the impugned present appeal is less than Rs. 3 lakhs the appeal filed by the revenue is not maintainable - as decided in Madhukar K. Inamdar HUF (2009 (7) TMI 145 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) Circular issued by the CBDT revising the monitory limit would be applicable to the pending cases - against revenue. Error in Valuation Report rejecting the actual cost of construction of the club building - Held that:- Since the CIT(A) has not adjudicated upon the alternate submissions made by the assessee and also since the assessee has correctly raised the objection that in case of error in the valuation report it is for the valuation cell to rectify the error after giving due notice to the assessee instead of the Assessing Officer stating that it is a typographical error - set aside the issue to the file of the AO to adjudicate upon the alternate ground and also call for a corrected report from the valuation cell Discount for rate difference of 15% from the CPWD rates allowed. Disallowance of irrecoverable advances/investments written off from the books of account Held that:- The assessee is in the real estate/construction and in the hotel business & the amount towards inter-corporate deposits/investments made with the group company M/s Prajay Financial Services are in the nature of capital investments made by the assessee also confirmed in the case Hasimara Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT [1998 (5) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT] and the decision of Greaves Ltd. Vs. CIT and another (2001 (3) TMI 33 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) - thus the deposits pertains to capital asset and non-recovery of any amount therefrom constitutes capital loss and the same cannot be allowed as deduction of bad debts - against assessee Disallowance of claim of deduction u/s 80IB Held that:- Following the decision of court in case of Dr. Mrs. Renuka Datla Vs. CIT [1999 (8) TMI 46 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] assessee was not independently engaged in developing and constructing housing project within the meaning of sub-section (10) of 80IB Nowhere in the first approval dated 01/09/1999 and final approval dated 22/03/2002 there is any reference to any housing project developed by the assessee company - Order of CIT(A) in disallowance confirmed - appeal of the assessee dismissed. Irrecoverable advances written off from the books of account Disallowance - Held that:- As the principle amount was never offered to tax and the assessee did not satisfy the preconditions of section 36(2) disallowance of claim warranted - as the investments made by the assessee in inter corporate deposits out of its surplus share capital were fully in the nature of capital investments writing off of such investments do constitute a capital loss and hence, is not deductible u/s 28 against assessee. Levy of interest u/s 234B - Held that:- Since charging of interest u/s 234B is consequential in nature AO is directed accordingly - appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
|