Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (4) TMI 789 - AT - Income TaxDeletion of interest on FDRs – Held that:- CIT(A) has held that the assessee is 100% government owned company appointed as a Nodal Agency for implementation of various infrastructure development projects all across Gujarat - the interest is not credited to the respective Grant accounts is factually incorrect – the decision in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX II Versus SAR INFRACON PVT LTD.[2014 (3) TMI 728 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] followed - the assessee has credited the interest accrued to the respect grant accounts – thus, there is no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) – Decided against Revenue. Disallowance of expenses on contribution to Gujarat Vibrant Summit 2007 – Held that:- The CIT(A) has held that the business of the assessee has already been commenced - the amount paid by the assessee-company way by way of participation fees to Gujarat Vibrant Summit to encourage development activities in the State - The assessee had also participated in the same by putting up a stall since the main object of the assessee-company is also to carry out activities for infrastructure development projects in the State of Gujarat – thus, there is no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) – Decided against Revenue. Disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act – Held that:- CIT(A) held that the appellant works as a nodal agency for implementation of various works undertaken/decided by the government - the grants for the projects is not its revenue income at all - the grants which are utilized for specified projects have been held to be not income but diversion of funds at source – the appellant is doing the work of a concern engaged in work which is in the nature of a works contact awarded by any person and executed by it - as per the amended Explanation below section 80IA(13) with retrospective effect from 1.4.2000; the work should not be of the nature of contract and not only contract - the project costs and source not being revenue of the appellant, it being not affected by the actual cost and efficiency of work, the assets created and the source not being of the appellant at any stage and it being entitled to a fixed remuneration for its professional services - it clearly falls in the excluded category as per the amended Explanation below section 80IA(13) – thus, they are not eligible for deduction – Decided against Assessee.
|