Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 285 - AT - Income TaxExemption u/s 80IA - mere work contractor or a developed of the road - Held that:- We find that in the case of the assessee itself the issue has been decided by the Tribunal it cannot be said that the assessee company was mere a contractor and not a developer. Therefore, on issue No. 3, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A). This issue is decided in favour of the assessee. Disallowance of depreciation on shuttering material purchased from Shyam Steel Industries - Held that:- From the copy of remand report dated 23/08/2016, we find that no such query regarding additions to shuttering material was made. The learned CIT(A) has further held that the detail of purchases of shuttering material has been examined and during examination he had found an amount of ₹ 57,91,665/- having been purchased after 30/09/2011 and rest of the purchases were from 01/04/2011 to 30/09/2011 whereas the assessee had claimed depreciation @100% on the total purchases. The learned CIT(A), after having observed the purchase of shuttering material by the assessee, did not allow claim of the assessee as he held that assessee had not produced the relevant material before the Assessing Officer during the remand proceedings also. However, we feel that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to produce the purchase bills which has been used for making claim for depreciation. Advance made to NCC-VEE (JV) - Held that:- We find that as per the additional evidence the assessee was bound to pay an amount of 4% to NCC-VEE (JV). The said additional evidence could not be filed before the authorities below. However, we find that the additional evidence goes to the root of the matter and, therefore, we have admitted the same and we remand this issue also back to the file of the Assessing Officer who should readjudicate the above in view of the additional evidence. Addition on account of non confirmation of sundry creditors - AO during remand proceedings again issued notice u/s 133(6) to such creditors and part of the creditors responded and therefore, learned CIT(A) allowed part relief to the assessee - Held that:- CIT(A) has held that during remand proceedings the assessee had not co-operated and he has confirmed the addition by holding that the notices issued to creditors had returned back unserved. However, while confirming the addition he has ignored the fact that the assessee had claimed to have made payments to these creditors through banking channels and assessee was having confirmation from these creditors. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to remand this issue also back to the file of the AO to adjudicate the issue afresh. These grounds are allowed for statistical purposes. Deduction under Chapter VI-A allowable be allowed on the income finally assessed - Held that:- In this respect our attention was invited to a copy of CBDT Circular also, a copy of which is placed at pages 193 and 194 of the paper book which says that if the expenditure is disallowed and such expenditure is related to the business activity against which the Chapter VI-A deduction has been claimed, the deduction needs to be allowed on the enhanced profits. Since we have remanded the entire issue raised by the assessee to the Assessing Officer for readjudication, the Assessing Officer will look into this aspect of additional ground also. The additional ground raised by the assessee is also remitted back to the Assessing Officer for adjudication. Accordingly, this ground is also allowed for statistical purposes.
|