Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (11) TMI 449 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - eligibility for deduction u/s 80IA - Held that:- In the given facts and circumstances of the case, Assessing Officer was having two legal possible views of either treating the assessee as a developer or a works contractor and on the basis of details available, ld. Assessing Officer treated the assessee as a developer eligible for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. In view of this, it can be said that the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Accordingly, we disagree with the finding of ld. CIT and set aside his order u/s 263 of the Act and restored the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act. Therefore issue raised in this appeal is decided in favour of assessee. Accordingly, the appeal of assessee is allowed. Deduction under section 80-IA - Held that:- Assessee is not merely a contractor but a developer looking to the scope of activities undertaken by it for the completion of the project and, therefore, eligible for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. Disallowance of business loss - Held that:- From going through the observation of ld. CIT(A) we find that impugned transaction of giving bank guarantee to Rajkamal Builders was in the course of business for carrying out of the contract for construction of water treatment of GWSSB & ADB and amount of ₹ 17,77,540/- was outstanding to be received has been claimed as business loss as there was no possibility to recover the same. However, these facts could not be proved by the assessee with the support of necessary documents. Ld. AR has made a request for setting aside the issue for examination to which ld. DR did not object. Therefore, we set aside this issue to the file of Assessing Officer for the purpose of verification of necessary evidence/documents which will be submitted by assessee. Disallowance u/s 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the Act towards non-payment of employees contribution to the Government- Held that:- CIT(A) has rightly disallowed the expenditure of employees contribution to P.F. deposited after the due date
|