|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 1077 Records
-
2014 (6) TMI 1040 - ITAT DELHI
Payment made as kickbacks to Iraqi authorities - illegal payment within the provisions of Section 37(1) and paid under the "Oil for Food Programme" of UNO and a CBDT Memorandum No.414/117/2005-IT (Inv,-1) dated 18.11.2005 read with Volcker Committee's Report which confirmed the illegality of the payments - nature of commission payment - HELD THAT:- As decided in case of TIL Limited vs. ACIT [ 2007 (3) TMI 404 - ITAT KOLKATA ] Volker Commission Report, so far as the same is offending to the interests of India, is mainly concerned about doling out permits to various parties including some Indian parties as well to procure oil from Iraqi oil fields at controlled/subsidized rates and have no direct connection with supply of tractors and allied materials to Iraq. Hence, in our view, there is no sound basis for connecting the appellant’s case to the Volker Commission Report. It is also apparent that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) had access to the said Volker Commission Report. Hence, this particular allegation about the appellant’s name being mentioned in the Volker Commission Report cannot stand.
Records show that even these contingencies also did not arise in this case as neither the name of appellant company has been proved to have figured in the Volker Commission Report nor has the payment been proved to be of the nature of a kick-back nor even it has been shown that the necessary permission from UN was not taken. So far as the nature of the payment is concerned, it has clearly been established that the payment was made purely for the purpose of procuring export order of Forklift Trucks to Iraq and also certain after-sales services performed by the Agent in Iraq and was of the nature of commission payment.
As stand taken by the learned CIT(A) that in absence of deduction of tax at source from the payment, it is hit by the provisions of section 40(a)( i) of the Act, also is not tenable. There is nothing on record to show that any part of the activities of the Iraq; Agent was performed in India. The payment was also received by them in Jordan. Absence of any Permanent Establishment or Business connection of the Agent in India also takes the case out of the purview of the deeming provisions regarding accrual of income in India as envisaged in section 5(2) - in this case, neither was the Commission payment received by the non-resident Agent in India nor did any income accrue or arise nor is deemed to accrue or arise to it in India. Hence, there was no liability on the part of the appellant company to deduct any tax from the amount of Commission payment made by it to the Iraqi Agent in terms of the provisions of section 195 of the Act .- there is nothing on record to show that the full amount as claimed by the appellant company was not actually paid or that some part of it was routed back to the appellant company or its Directors in an indirect or underhand way. Therefore, there is no case for disallowing the Commission payment in this case from any angle whatsoever. Taking into consideration all these aspects, we hold the Commission payment under consideration is fully allowable. We therefore, reverse the orders of the lower authorities and delete the entire disallowance in this regard. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (6) TMI 1038 - ITAT JODHPUR
Addition u/s 68 - addition on account of bogus sundry creditors, the genuineness of which, the assessee utterly failed to prove - HELD THAT:- A.O. has rejected the books of account by mentioning numerous defects therein which has been discussed from page 2 to 9 of the assessment order. Thus there is implied rejection of books of account. To meet out any pilferage, etc., by enhancing and increasing the net profit rate, in our considered opinion, the ld. CIT(A) has justified his action.
The trade creditors, obviously have to be included in the turnover of the year and in case of a civil contractor, the net taxable income can be arrived by applying the net profit rate of the total receipts. Although a lumpsum addition has been sustained by invoking different net profit rate, but a separate addition of sundry creditors by treating them as bogus, particularly, when these are trade creditors, the entire amount qua them is not justified. When the assessee is showing receipt of all these creditors and in that case even if the names and complete addresses thereof could not be given but the trade creditors cannot be treated at par with the cash creditors. - Appeal of the department stands dismissed.
-
2014 (6) TMI 1037 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Disallowance 40(a)(ia) - expenses paid by the assessee company to its associate company on cost sharing basis - HELD THAT:- If these expenses have been incurred in the business of the associate/subsidiary and these are payments made to the regular employees employed by the subsidiary/associate and towards their salary, then, the reimbursement of such expenses by the present assessee would not require it to make any deduction.
Tax would not be required to be deducted at source. In such circumstances and going by the factual position which is undisputed, we are of the view that the Tribunal was not required to answer any larger question or decide a wider controversy. Even we are not required to go into the same considering the peculiar facts and circumstances and the nature of the arrangement. The payment is thus, not for any service but as reimbursement of expenses is the conclusion reached upon noticing the undisputed factual position. In such circumstances, the view taken is a possible view and the appeal, therefore, does not raise any substantial question of law. The appeal, is therefore, dismissed.
-
2014 (6) TMI 1036 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dishonor of Cheque - case of accused is that the cheque in question was not issued to the complainant but to one Sankar - rejection of evidence - accused also submitted that the complainant has lodged a prosecution on the ground that the accused had borrowed ₹ 2,32,097/- which on the face of it appears improbable because no one will borrow any amount in fractions - HELD THAT:- There seems to be some force in the contention of the learned counsel for the accused with regard to the amount of ₹ 2,32,097/- being the alleged amount that was borrowed from the complainant without any supporting documents - In the background of this aspect the other contentions of the accused should also be viewed and that he should not be denied a fair opportunity to establish his case in order to discharge the burden under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In this regard, the accused has first played the recorded conversation in the open Court and has asked the complainant to identify his voice.
Had the complainant accepted that fact, then the accused would have been able to mark the compact disc containing the conversation as material object in favour of his defence. In this case, the complainant has not completely denied his voice but has merely stated that he is not able to recognise the voice. It may be borne in mind that the complainant admittedly is a retired Superintendent of Police and not a lay man.
Admissibility of evidence - HELD THAT:- The argument of the learned counsel for the complainant that illegally collected evidence should not be admitted in the Court of law deserves to be stated only to be rejected because if any piece of evidence is admissible and relevant it cannot be shut out on the ground that it has been illegally collected.
In the event of the accused marking the compact disc in a manner known to law like for example waiving his privilege under Section 315 Cr. P.C. and getting into the witness box, then he should be given liberty to file a fresh application requesting the Court to collect the sample voices of both of them (complainant and accused) and send the same for comparison. This will be in tune with his right of fair trial guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The trial Court is directed to expeditiously complete the proceedings in this case as it relates to the year of 2011.
Petition disposed off.
-
2014 (6) TMI 1035 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Rectification of mistake - mistake on the face of record or not - classification of goods - Beneficiale Liquid - DSN Capsules - the appellant filed two separate appeals for the two periods - Revenue states that as the impugned order is common, the said final order will have a binding effect on the appeal, which is pending. Further, he also states that the appellant is seeking a review of the appeal already disposed of, which is not desirable - HELD THAT:- Under the facts and circumstances, firstly both the appeals should have been disposed of together. Secondly, judgement cited by the learned Counsel for the appellant have not been considered as no reason have been cited in the final order for deferring with the views expressed in those judgements. Further, the appellant has suffered prejudice, as appeals were not disposed of together.
Both the appeals tagged together for final hearing - ROM application allowed.
Put up for hearing on 15.07.2019.
-
2014 (6) TMI 1034 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Disallowance of deduction of administration and interest expenses etc. - appellant is not carrying on any business and income of the appellant is assessable under the head “income from other sources - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2012 (11) TMI 658 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] there was no change in the amounts outstanding as on 31/03/2003 and 31/03/2004 . We have also noted that the amount of interest accrued was also identical in figures, found to be outstanding as on 31/03/2003 and 31/03/2004. Meaning thereby that there was no accrual of interest liability, though admittedly the ld.AR has stated before us that “mercantile system” of accounting was adopted by the assessee. In that case, the assessee has to prove the basis on which the interest expenditure was claimed. A.O. is hereby directed to proceed accordingly as per law.
In respect of the interest portion, since the facts are identical in this year also, we restore this issue back to the file of AO in the light of the decision passed by the Tribunal. Since the facts are identical in this year also, therefore the issue is restored back to the file of AO for fresh decision. Thus, this ground of assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Disallowance of setting off of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation u/s.32(2) against “income from other sources” - HELD THAT:- In the case in hand, the assessee-company is under liquidation and, therefore, no activity is being carried out by the assessee. However, the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Virmani Industries Pvt.Ltd. [1995 (10) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] would be applicable to the extent for availing the benefit u/s.32(2) of the Act. The assessee need not carry on any business or profession. It is not coming out of the records that from which year the depreciation was being carried forward by the assessee and why the assessee has accepted the decision of the ld.CIT(A) in the Asst.Year 2004-05 since no ground against the rejection of claim was raised by the assessee before the Tribunal in [2012 (11) TMI 658 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] . In the present year, the CIT(A) has followed the decision rendered in the AY 2004-05. Under these facts, we are unable to accept the claim of the assessee and, therefore, this ground is rejected.
-
2014 (6) TMI 1033 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Sales tax exemption - case of petitioner is that while issuing a fresh entitlement certificate under the provisions of the KVAT Act, no condition of the earlier entitlement certificate at Annexure-A should have been altered - HELD THAT:- The entitlement certificate dated 21/03/2001 as been issued under the provisions of the KST Act following Notification dated 15/11/1996 and Government Order dated 15/03/1996. The requirement of obtaining a fresh entitlement certificate was on account of the enforcement of the KVAT Act. When the petitioner made an application in that regard, Annexures-C and D were the entitlement certificates issued - There is no dispute with regard to the period for which the petitioner is entitled to the certificate of entitlement with regard to exemption of sales tax and also the tax amounts specified therein.
The respondent-authority who has issued the certificate under the provisions of the KVAT Act, was not authorized or empowered to impose any fresh condition while issuing the certificate of entitlement, contrary to the Government Order under notification as well as the earlier certificate issued under the KST Act - In that view of the matter, Annexures-C and D are quashed.
A direction is issued to the respondent to re-issue a fresh certificate of entitlement in line with the earlier certificate dated 21/03/2001 - petition allowed.
-
2014 (6) TMI 1032 - ITAT PUNE
Disallowance of provision made for Leave Encashment on accrual basis - HELD THAT:- Assessee at the outset submitted that the above ground is covered against the assessee by the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sister concern namely Serum Institute of India Ltd. In view of the above, the first ground by the assessee is dismissed.
Claim of deduction of PMS fees from the capital gain - Claim u/s.48 against the Short Term Capital Gain declared in the return of income on sale of shares - Justification for claim under the head “Capital Gain” - capital gain’ or ‘business income' - HELD THAT:- As decided in KRA Holding [2013 (9) TMI 1013 - ITAT PUNE] e Tribunal in assessee’s own case has already taken a view in favour of the assessee. Since the AO & CIT(A) have followed the order for earlier year in the case of the assessee and since the order of CIT(A) for earlier year has been reversed by the Tribunal, therefore, unless and until the decision of the Tribunal is reversed by a higher court, the same in our opinion should be followed. In this view of the matter, we respectfully following the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2004-05 allow the claim of the Portfolio Management fees as an allowable expenditure.
We find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) allowing the claim claimed u/s.48 against the Short Term Capital Gain declared in the return of income on sale of shares. Grounds raised by the Revenue are accordingly dismissed.
-
2014 (6) TMI 1031 - ITAT JODHPUR
Trading addition - applying net profit rate @ 6.5% subject to allowability of depreciation, interest and remuneration to partners - HELD THAT:- In this case, the past history of the assessee is available and in the immediately past A.Y., net profit rate of 5.85% has been accepted. Therefore, in continuity of consistent view taken by us, we direct that 5.85% in place of 6.5% adopted by the ld. CIT(A) has to be considered and whatever trading addition remains to be added can be added. With this observation, we partly allow ground raised in cross objection and dismiss the ground raised in appeal by the revenue.
Characterization of income - Treating the interest from FDRs as income from other sources or business income - HELD THAT:- Facts of the case are that by the assessee the FDRs were raised on the compulsion of taking contract from Government department on which interest accrued to the assessee. This is also a settled position of law that in such civil contract cases, when necessarily the FDRs have to be purchased and have to be kept as security for obtaining contracts, such interest received is treated as business income
-
2014 (6) TMI 1030 - ITAT DELHI
Addition as capital gain in respect of disallowance u/s 54EC for late investment of REC Bonds - Admission of additional ground - HELD THAT:- Ground raised by the assessee in terms of nature of land u/s 2(14) of the Act is a legal ground, as such in the interests of substantial justice in order to decide the issue of taxability of the specific income stated to have arisen as a result of sale of a specific land the issue is germane and goes to the root of the matter, the same is directed to be admitted.
Considering the plea of additional evidence we also hold that the same is relevant and crucial for determining the issue as such the same is also directed to be admitted. The prayer of the Ld. Sr. DR, Mr. Sameer Sharma that the issue has to be restored to the AO has merit as the facts necessarily are required to be looked into at the stage of the Assessing Officer.
After admitting the additional ground and the additional evidence to restore the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to adjudicate thereon by way of a speaking order in accordance with law. The additional evidence filed by the assessee needless to say shall be taken into consideration while deciding the issue. The assessee would be at liberty to place whatever other evidence it has in its possession order to support its claim. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2014 (6) TMI 1029 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
MAT - Computation of book profit - computing deemed income u/s. 115JA - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the auditors have not certified that the books of account were properly maintained in accordance with the provision of the Companies Act. The auditors in their certificate have indicated that the depreciation was not charged to the Profit & Loss A/c. and therefore, the certificate was subject to Note No.9 amongst others.
Submissions advanced by Mr. Khaitan must prevail. The Assessing Officer does not have jurisdiction to go behind the net profit shown in the Profit & Loss A/c., except as provided in the statute, in those cases where the accounts have been properly maintained.
When the Statute provides for computation of book profit of the assessee being a Company which has computed the total income under this Act in respect of any previous year, it has to be implied that the legislature intended to mean that the assessee, being a Company, has computed total income correctly as per the provisions of the Act. If the total income has not been correctly computed, then the bar created limiting the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer would not be operative. For the aforesaid reasons, the findings of the learned Tribunal indicated above are reversed.
Net profit computation for the purposes of section 115JA - On account of depreciation, the learned Tribunal opined that the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to tinker with the books of accounts certified by the auditors, but with regard to this item of expenditure, the learned Tribunal exhorted the Assessing Officer to tinker with the books of accounts. There was no question of allowing any adjustment as per Explanation to Section 115JA. The prior period expenditure amounting to a sum of ₹ 1,28,986/- was already shown in the profit and loss account as per accounting standards. The learned Tribunal purported to disallow the aforesaid expenditure on the basis of a mistaken belief that the assessee was seeking adjustment of the aforesaid sum in computing the book profit but missed the fact that the expenditure had already been taken into account in computing the net profit.
-
2014 (6) TMI 1028 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Depreciation on leased assets - ownership on machinery - HELD THAT:- In the instant case admittedly, the machinery is owned by the assessee. The assessee had leased that machinery to its customers. That is the business the assessee is carrying on and therefore, the judgment of the Apex Court [2013 (1) TMI 344 - SUPREME COURT] reversing the judgment of this Court in M/s ICDS Limited equally applies to the facts of this case and therefore, the order passed by the tribunal disallowing the depreciation claimed is liable to be set-aside.
Disallowance of lease equalization reserve - HELD THAT:- The previous year involved in the case is 31.3.1998 and the assessment year is from 1.4.1998 to 31.3.1999. In order to over come such claim, by Finance Act No.2/2009 which came into effect from 1.4.1998 clause (g) was substituted to explanation to Section 115JA of the Act. This Court had an occasion to consider the said question in the case of THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs WEIZMANN HOMES LTD. [2013 (5) TMI 123 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] wherein as held said amount has not been included in the book profit. It was unascertained liability. Even this amount is earmarked as provision for diminution in the value of any asset for the purpose of arriving at the book profit for the purpose of Section 115JA which ought to have been included. The Assessing Authority was justified in adding the said amount to the book profit. Both the Appellate Authorities committed a serious error in deleting the said amount. It is contrary to the statutory provision. That portion of the order of Tribunal requires to be set aside and accordingly it is hereby set aside and the substantial question of law is answered in favour of Revenue and against the assessee.
-
2014 (6) TMI 1027 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Applicability of section 14A for making disallowance out of income which eligible for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) - no nexus between the interest /dividend income earned from the Cooperative Societies and the interest expenditure incurred by the assessee on borrowed funds on the ground that there is no proof of the investment of such interest bearing funds to earn the said income without appreciating the fact that the assessee has failed to substantiate the above in full measure with proper evidences? HELD THAT:- In view of decision decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Distributors (Baroda) P. Ltd vs. Union of India [1985 (7) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Tribunal allowing the deduction to the assessee under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act on the amount of interest and dividend earned on the investment / deposits with the other cooperative societies. We see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal. Under the circumstances, in all these appeals with respect to grant of deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act is held against the revenue
Admission of additional evidence - appeal of the revenue against the order of learned CIT(A) being bad in law, being passed against the natural justice, where new claim was accepted by him and against Rule 46 A and without even confronting it to the Assessing Officer - HELD THAT:- Tribunal in the impugned order has specifically observed and has given specific findings that all the details, which came to be considered by the learned CIT(A) were as such before the learned AO, on which, learned AO concluded otherwise. The learned Tribunal also observed that balance sheet and P & I Account were available in all the years that the AO gave the figures on which the learned CIT(A) relied upon. The learned Tribunal has specifically observed that thus there is no additional evidence submitted by the appellant before the learned CIT(A) in A.Y. 2006-07. Under the circumstances and in view of the aforesaid factual findings recorded by the learned Tribunal, we dismiss present appeal on the said ground also.
-
2014 (6) TMI 1026 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Recall of the winding up order - amount due and payable by the company in liquidation - HELD THAT:- Since the sum of ₹ 29,523/- has been permitted to be paid to the Indo Aryan Publicity, the said amount shall be deducted from the sum of ₹ 1,00,000/- which has been deposited by the applicant in C.A.No.97/2013 and the balance amount shall be paid to the applicant.
Application allowed.
-
2014 (6) TMI 1025 - ITAT CHENNAI
Exemption u/s 11 denied - cancellation of the registration u/s. 12AA (3) - AO brought to tax the income of the assessee as AOP denying the benefit - whether activities of the society are in the nature of ‘general public utility’ generating profit ? - HELD THAT:- As decided in assessee's own case [2013 (3) TMI 823 - ITAT CHENNAI] we are of the view that the assessee is entitled for exemption under sections 11 & 12 of the Act and accordingly, allow the appeal of the assessee and further hold that the reference made by the Ld.AO to the Ld.DIT (E) recommending cancellation of the registration U/s. 12AA (3) of the Act to be erroneous.
It is pertinent to mention that the Tribunal has been persistently holding that the assessee society functions under the concept of Mutuality and the activities embedded in the Memorandum of Association of the society are charitable. Further the decisions of the case relied upon by the Revenue is not applicable to the facts of the relevant case before us. Therefore we hereby direct the Revenue to delete the tax imposed on the assessee by withdrawing the benefit U/s. 11 & 12 - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (6) TMI 1024 - ITAT MUMBAI
Income from house property - Claim of deduction of maintenance charges paid to society / builder in respect of the following flats let out by the appellant - HELD THAT:- Only the change in clause (b) is that, instead of the word “properties let and annual rent received or receivable”, the same has been substituted with “property or any part of the property is let and the actual rent received or receivable”. Thus, there is no material change except for annual rent received or receivable has been replaced by actual rent received or receivable and, therefore, on this basis, to conclude that the earlier decisions will not be applicable is not correct.
The Hon’ble High Court in CIT v/s R.J. Wood Pvt. Ltd. [2011 (1) TMI 889 - DELHI HIGH COURT] held that maintenance charges and other charges paid by the assessee is deductible from the rent while computing annual letting value. As per the lease agreement, which has been placed in paper book, it is seen that the assessee was liable to pay the municipal charges out of the rent received from the licensee. If the licensee had to make such payment, then the actual rent received would have been less. The deduction under section 24, is to be calculated on the basis of income which is earned and chargeable to tax under section 22 and 23.
If the gross rent also includes society charges, which is to be paid by the assessee, then while computing the annual value, the amount of rent which is actually received in the hands of the owner in respect of the lease property should be taken into consideration while giving the deduction under section 24. Thus, the actual rent received as envisaged in section 23, should be construed as net rental income received after deducting mandatory society charges. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (6) TMI 1023 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Validity of Section 7(1) of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 - Non-obtaining of license under the act - launching of Criminal prosecution - medical practitioner - Commercial establishment or not - HELD THAT:- The Apex Court in DR. DEVENDRA M. SURTI VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT [1968 (5) TMI 57 - SUPREME COURT] has, after examining the provisions of the "Gujarat Shops and Establishments Act", which are identical to the provisions of Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 come to the conclusion that "private dispensary of doctor is not commercial establishment".
The amendment incorporating medical practitioners within the definition of commercial establishment will have to be held ultra vires and is accordingly struck down - Criminal prosecution which has been initiated against the petitioner is quashed.
Petition allowed.
-
2014 (6) TMI 1022 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Direction to vacate the land and hand over possession of the premises to the Tahsildar, Fort-Tondiarpet Taluk, Chennai - resumption of land - power of eminent domain - compulsory acquisition of the property - Legal rights.
The crucial question that arises for consideration in this case is, when one organ of democracy, namely, the executive/Government has been empowered to entrust its own property to another organ viz., judiciary under which the control has been given to Administrator General & Official Trustee (AGOT) under an enactment, on the principle of eminent domain, can the Government invoke another enactment i.e., Government Grants Act under Section 3, resuming the land on its own, without resorting to any procedure contemplated under the Official Trusts Act ?
Held that:- The Government, while making an order for resumption of land through its executive, did not take any order either from the scheme court or from the AGOT Court. Though there were attempts made by the executive to file applications one by Chennai Metro Rail Limited and the other by District Collector, subsequently, the same were withdrawn. So, it is clear that there was no order made by AGOT Court, which is the court of competent jurisdiction to permit AGOT to hand over the possession of the land in its control to the Government, for resumption. The said judicial procedure has been overlooked by the Government in resuming the land, even of its own. This act of the Government, bypassing an act under which the entrustment has been made, would amount to violation of the basic structure of the Constitution of India and the power of separation which has been demarcated could not be usurped by one organ on its own.
Judicial discipline binds us and the constitutional wisdom underlined under Article 141 of the Constitution is to be followed - while upholding the rule of law that there shall be a proper procedure to approach the AGOT Court and also the competent court of civil jurisdiction where the scheme decree has been formulated for control and management of the property for obtaining an order before resumption of the land under the Official Trustees Act, these appeals are to be dismissed.
Thus, though there is a violation of Rule of Law by the authorities in resumption of lands in question, with heavy heart, by giving due respect to the ratio decidendi of the Supreme Court with regard to the very same subject lands, we are left with no other choice but to follow the same under Article 141 of the Constitution - appeals dismissed.
-
2014 (6) TMI 1021 - ITAT CHENNAI
Rectification of mistake u/s 254 - non adjudication of specific ground related addition towards unaccounted capitation fees for the nursing course - HELD THAT:- We agree with the Revenue that the above ground is not adjudicated by the Tribunal in the said common order. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal is partially recalled only in respect of assessment year 2008-09 in [2012 (11) TMI 537 - ITAT CHENNAI] to decide the single ground relating to capitation fees for the nursing course.
-
2014 (6) TMI 1020 - ITAT PUNE
Claim of pro-rata deduction u/s.80IB(10) - entire project is not completed before the stipulated date - non-completion of the few buildings - Held that:- We find the Ld.CIT(A) allowed the claim of proportionate deduction u/s.80IB(10) for A.Yrs. 2004-05 to 2007-08 by relying on various decisions. However, for the A.Y. 2008-09 the Ld.CIT(A) denied the claim of benefit of deduction u/s.80IB(10) by relying on the decision of the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sainath Estate Pvt. Ltd.[2013 (9) TMI 528 - ITAT HYDERABAD], Everest Home Construction India Pvt. Ltd. [2012 (9) TMI 585 - ITAT MUMBAI] and the decision of the Mumbai High Court in the case of Brahma Associates [2011 (2) TMI 373 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT].
We find the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Siddhivinayak Shree [2013 (7) TMI 1123 - ITAT PUNE] after considering the decision in the case of Sainath Estate Pvt. Ltd.(Supra), the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Everest Home Construction India Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) has allowed the claim of proportionate deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the I.T. Act, 1961.
We are of the considered opinion that the assessee is eligible for pro-rata claim of deduction u/s.80IB(10) with respect to the eligible units of the housing project. We, therefore, uphold the order of Ld.CIT(A) for A.Yrs. 2003-04 to 2007-08. The order of Ld.CIT(A) for A.Y. 2008-09 is set-aside and the AO is directed to allow proportionate deduction for the eligible units.
........
|
