Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 470 - AT - Income TaxBogus purchases and sub-contract labour expenses - notice u/s 133(6)were issued - did not respond as the notices and the same got returned unserved - certain discrepancies in the statements of parties no opportunity for cross-examination - HELD THAT:- The assessee has discharged the primary burden that is cast on it to prove the genuineness of these transactions. The Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A), in our opinion, have not come out with irrefutable proof to negate the evidences submitted by the assessee. It is not the case of the revenue that the standard operating procedure laid down by the assessee’s head office was violated by the site office nor that the procedure and documentation was not correct . The entire disallowance is made on suspicion and probabilities. These cannot take the place of evidence. Under these circumstances, we uphold the contentions of the assessee and delete the addition made herein. Disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80-IA - CIT(A) followed order of ITAT in assessee own case and allowed claim - HELD THAT:- In view of the above discussion, we respectfully follow the proposition of law laid down by the co-ordinate bench of the ITAT in the assessee’s own case [2017 (3) TMI 1050 - ITAT KOLKATA] on the very same issue and uphold the order of the ld. CIT(A) that the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act. As decided in assessee's own case the projects from Serial No. 1 to 2 have been considered as eligible projects for claim of deduction u/s 80-IA(4) by the Tribunal in the earlier Assessment Years. Only in the case of Kolkata Metro Rail Corporation at S. No. 7 and Bangalore Development Authority at S. No. 8, the projects were not considered earlier as to whether they are projects on which the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act. On a query from the Bench, the assessee submitted that the details of the duties and responsibilities of the assessee company as a contractor have been place in the paper book. In our view, this needs to be examined by the Assessing Officer as the Assessing Officer has not considered the same. For the earlier Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13, this Bench of the Tribunal under similar circumstances has restored four projects to the file of the Assessing Officer for examining whether they fall within the ken of exemption u/s 80-IA of the Act. As Consistent with the view of the Tribunal in the earlier Assessment Years, we set aside the issue of grand of deduction u/s 80-IA(4) of the Act, to the Assessing Officer, on the following projects:- Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Bangalore Development Authority. As regards deduction claimed on all other six projects at S. No. 1 to 6 in the table above, we uphold the order of the ld. CIT(A). Disallowance made u/s 14A - HELD THAT:- Hon’ble ITAT Kolkata in the case of REI Agro Ltd. vs. DCIT, [2013 (9) TMI 156 - ITAT KOLKATA] to restrict the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, to ₹ 55,565/-. As the ld. CIT(A) has applied the decision of the Jurisdictional Tribunal, which was later upheld by the Hon’ble High Court we find no infirmity in the same
|