TMI Blog2007 (6) TMI 316X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act, on the profit derived from developing and building residential housing project, particularly when the land is not registered in assessee s name and whether the ownership is a pre-condition to claim of deduction under section 80-IB(10) of the Act? 3. The briefly stated facts are that the assessee had developed and built a housing project on a land at Revenue Survey No. 648 belonging to one Shri Ghanshyambhap A. Patel and others, through power of attorney holder, Mahendrabhai A. Patel, who are the owners of the land. The assessee-firm had entered into a development and construction agreement with (1) Shri Vinodbhai Nathabhai Patel, HUF, (2) Shri Bhailalbhai Nathabhai Patel, HUF, (3) Harishbhai Nathabhai Patel, HUF and (4) Shri Hashmukhbhai Nathabhai Patel through their partner, Shri Chetankumar Rameshbhai Jogi. The development and construction agreement and Banakhat agreement are both dated 18-5-2000. There was a tri-party development agreement revealing that the landowners agreed to get the land developed through the assessee-firm and also agreed that the assessee-firm would make the members i.e., prospective buyers and collect the land consideration at the rate ment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e ground that the land on which development had been carried out is in the name of Shri Somabhai Ukabhai Mali and not in the name of the appellant firm. Further, the approval given by the local authority was not in the name of the appellant-firm but in the name of original landowner. Further, the appellant-firm has acted merely as a contractor as it has entered into construction agreements with the unit holders. The landowners have sold the pieces of land to the unit holders directly and the appellant has merely acted as a confirming party. There is no dispute that the appellant-firm has fulfilled the remaining conditions for claiming the deduction under section 80-IB(10) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It has been pointed out by the appellant s representative that as per the development agreement dated 29-12-2000, the appellant has to perform the following work: ( i )To pay a consideration determined at Rs. 20 per sq. mtr. (clause 1) ( ii )To obtain all the permissions from the competent authority and to pay the necessary development charges and other charges to the local authority. (clause 2) ( iii )To advertise the development of the project and to enroll the members/custom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proval of housing project by a local authority should be in the name of the developer. Therefore, it cannot be held that for availing the deduction under section 80-IB(10), ownership of land is an essential element and that the approval of the housing project by a local authority should be in the name of the person developing and building the same. As pointed out by the appellant in construing the benevolent provisions, the Court should adopt the construction which advances, fulfils and furthers the object of the Act rather than one which would defeat the same and render the provision illusory. Further, the Court cannot go to the extent of reading something that is not stated in the provision. As pointed but by the appellant s representative the appellant as per the development agreement had obtained the actual possession of the land for execution of the agreement and had independent and exclusive right to enjoy the said land. The appellant-firm had undertaken the entire development of the housing project. For the execution of the scheme it was to appoint the architect. The appellant-firm was to appoint contractors for the execution of work and to make contracts with them. Further, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, also nowhere states that the developer of housing project must be the owner of the land. The learned counsel for the assessee has taken us to the legislative history of the provisions including the provisions of section 80-IA(4F) of the Act, where initially the deduction was allowed to an undertaking engaged in developing and building housing project approved by a local authority prior to 1-4-2000. He also submitted that the existing provisions of section 80-IB(10) relevant for the relevant assessment year nowhere speaks about the ownership of land for an undertaking engaged in developing and building housing projects. The learned counsel for the assessee also relied on the various case law of the Supreme Court, High Courts and also of the Tribunal, namely, Arun Excello Foundations (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2007] 108 TTJ (Chennai) 71, the Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT v. Vadilal Lallubhai [1972] 86 ITR2 (SC) and in the case of Federation of Andhra Pradesh Chambers of Commerce and Industry v. State of Andhra Pradesh [2001] 247 ITR 36 (SC), decision of Lucknow Bench, of the Tribunal in the case of Sir Padampat Singhania through LR v. Dy. CIT [2004] 89 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd even the completion certificate is also issued to the landowner alone, the assessees are not eligible for deduction under section 80-IB(10) of the Act. Transfer of land through development agreement is not a transfer of ownership much less a transfer of approval. It gives possession not as a prelude to, or in connection with transfer of the title, but, for the limited purposes to carry out development and construction work. The learned Departmental Representative relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of V.S.M.R. Jagadishchandran v. CIT [1997] 227 ITR 240 1 and decision in the case of Gujarat Industrial Development Corpn. v. CIT [1997] 227 ITR 414 2 (SC) in support of his submissions. He also referred to the decision of Tribunal Pune Bench in Om Engineers Builders v. ITO [2006] 104 TTJ (Pune) 604 and also referred to the decision of Tribunal Pune Bench Nirmiti Construction s case ( supra ). 8. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We have also gone through the orders of lower authorities as well as the paper book filed by the learned counsel for the assessee. 9. In the most common ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herefore, the landowner extinguishes his interest in this land in favour of developer on execution of this development agreement. 11. In the case of the present assessee land situated at Vadodara, i.e. area comprising of the city of Baroda and around it, is declared as urban development area within the meaning of section 2( xxix ) of the GTP UDA and the constructions carried out in and around Vadodara are governed by the provisions of the GTP UDA. The provisions of section 26 of the GTP UDA restrict everyone from carrying on development/construction over any land without the permission of the appropriate authority. i.e., Vadodara Urban Development Authority (VUDA), section 27 prescribes that an application for development is to be made, importantly, such application, can be made by any person.....intending to carry out any development.... in or over any land .... . It does not refer only to an owner of the land. That apart, the definition of the term owner as given in section 2( xviii ) of the GTP UDA clearly says that anyone, who develops the land on his own account or for the benefit of any other person or as a joint trustee, guardian, manager, etc., is to be t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal estate and not, who has carried out the same. 13. It is a fact that the land was not registered in its name. It is also true that the assessee had the approval granted by local authority, i.e. BMC which stands in the name of the owner of the land. But, on perusal of the development and construction agreement it is very clear that the landowners have agreed to get their land developed through the assessee-firm for construction of housing project. From the translated copy of approval of local authority, i.e. BMC, dated 17-7-2000, we find that it is in the name of Shri Ghanshyambhap A. Patel and others through power of attorney holder Mahendrabhai A. Patel and in this approval letter, landowner is shown as the applicant. The relevant clause Nos. 1 and 2 of the Agreement to sell , may now be looked into to find out what is the exact nature of the transaction. The relevant clause reads as under: " 1. The above-referred land in schedule is agreed to be sold by us, party of the third part to party of the first part at the rate of per sq. ft. at Rs. 100 and today and you party of the first part has jointly paid to party of the third part Rs. 11,000 (Rupees eleven thousands ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The Party of the second part the confirming party as landlords had executed an agreement of sale for the land described in schedule below in favour of the party of the first part on 7-9-1981 at the rate Rs. 18 per sq. ft. and subject to the other conditions mentioned therein. Accordingly, the party of the first part as decided full consideration price is paid to the second part the confirming party i.e. to landlords and, therefore, landlords registered sale deed/the first part or nominee/s of the party of the first part are in actual possession of the land described. 3. The Party of the third part are connected with the construction of business since many years and have experience of constructing residential houses. 4. With the consent of the party of the first and second parts, the party of the third part as a developer and builder wants to do a project/scheme of constructing residential houses having area less than 1,500 sq. ft. for the middle class society." 15. On perusal of clause 11 of these agreements we find that with the consent of the party of the first and second parts, the rights and authorities are given to the third party, as a developer- cum -builder ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clause No. 16 of this agreement the parties of the first and second parts of this agreement have handed over all the responsibilities of the scheme to the developer- cum -building contractor. It reads as under : "16. The party of the first and second parts have handed over all the responsibilities of the scheme to the developer- cum -building contractor so at present to the party of the first part as per rules and regulations he is getting FSI, but, in future if changes take place in rules and regulations of FSI in such circumstances other than the present scheme on the land if special construction is allowed then for such additional work other than total construction made, as per rules and regulations by getting passed the plans from V.M.C., Vadodara to do the construction all the rights and authorities shall be with developer- cum -building contractor and, thereafter, also whatever F.S.I, rights shall remain that also as per this agreement shall be with the party of the third part." 18. From the clauses of the development and construction agreements as well as agreement for sale, both dated 18-5-2000, extracted above, we observe that these two agreements effectively trans ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... On these undisputed facts we have to examine the provisions of the section 80-IB(10) of the Act. Before discussing the provisions appearing in the impugned years, it would be relevant to have a look at the legislative history of the provision. The deduction for housing project was introduced for the first time in assessment year 1999-2000 by inserting sub-section (4F) in section 80-IA of the Act and the deduction was as per provisions of section 80-IA(1) in respect of any profits and gains of such undertaking. The said section 80-IA(4F) reads as under : "(4F) This section applies to an undertaking, engaged in developing and building housing projects approved by a local authority subject to the condition that the size of the plot of land has a minimum area of one acre, and the residential unit has a built up area not exceeding one thousand square feet: Provided that the undertaking commences development and construction of the housing project on or after the 1st day of October, 1998 and completes the same before the 31st day of March, 2001." 21. On a close reading of this provision, it would be apparent that it applied to an undertaking which was engaged in developing an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntive for Promotion of Housing. Liberalization of tax holiday to approved housing projects. Under section 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, profits of approved housing projects where the development and construction commences on or after 1-10-1998 and is completed by 31-3-2001 are fully deductible. The conditions necessary for claiming the benefit are that the approved housing project should be on minimum area of one acre and should have dwelling units with a maximum built-up area of 1,000 sq. ft. It is proposed to modify the existing benefits to provide that in areas other than those falling in and within 25 kms. from the municipal limits of Delhi and Mumbai, the built-up area of dwelling units may be upto a maximum limit of 1,500 sq. ft. instead of 1,000 sq. ft. at present to make them entitled for benefit. The built-up area for areas falling in Delhi and Mumbai and within 25 kms. of the municipal limits of both, however, shall remain the same. The proposed amendment will take effect from 1-4-2000, and will, accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 2000-01 and subsequent years." 25. The provisions of section 80-IB(10) thus are sought to provide that for approved ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i and Mumbai or within 25 kms of municipal limit of these cities and 1,500 sq. ft. at any other place. There is no other condition, which is to be complied by an assessee for claiming the deduction on profits of the housing project. 28. The contention of the revenue authorities that to claim deduction under section 80-IB(10), there is a condition precedent that the assessee must be owner of the land on which housing project is constructed has no force. We do not find any such condition as appearing in the provisions of the section extracted above. A plain reading of sub-section (10) of section 80-IB reveals and makes it evident that there must be an undertaking developing and building a housing project as approved by a local authority. It does not have any further condition that such development and building of the housing project should also be on a land owned by an assessee undertaking. It might be true that the land belongs to the person who has entered into an agreement with the assessee to develop and build housing project but on a perusal of the agreement as narrated above, it is evident that the development and building work has been carried out by the assessee in pursua ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The act or process of developing; progress. ( b )Synonym: Expansion, elaboration, growth, evolution, unfolding, maturing, maturation. ( d ) Webster Dictionary, the following definitions emerge : ( a )To realize the potential of; ( b )To aid in the growth of : strengthen, develop the biceps ( c )To bring into being : make active (develop a business) ( d )To convert ( a tract of land ) for specific purpose, as by building extensively ( e ) Law Lexicon Dictionary, the following definitions could be seen: Development ( a )To act, process or result of development or growing or causing to grow; the state of being developed. ( b )Happening. 31. The Supreme Court in the case of Gujarat Industrial Development ( supra ), considering the meaning of developer held that the word Development appearing in the provisions should be understood in its wider sense and, therefore, granted exemption even though the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation was engaged in the industrial development. The development means the realization of potentialities of land or territory by building or mining. Accordingly, it can be safely said that a person who undertakes to deve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntial units is not more than 1,500 sq. ft. the property being situated in Baroda, a city other than Delhi and Mumbai. 33. It may also be born in mind that deduction is not exclusively to an assessee but to an undertaking developing and building housing project, be it developed as a contractor or as an owner. This fact is evident on the bare reading of sub-section (1) of section 80-IB, sub-section (2) of section 80-IB, which provides that this section applies to an industrial undertaking which fulfils all the following conditions viz. . . . and sub-section (12) which allows the deduction to the amended ( sic ) or resulting company in case of amalgamation or demerger of the original undertaking which had started developing and building the housing project. For the sake of convenience, sub-section (12) of section 80-IB is reproduced hereunder : "(12) Where any undertaking of an Indian company which is entitled to the deduction under this section is transferred, before the expiry of the period specified in this section, to another Indian company in a scheme of amalgamation or demerger. ( a )no deduction shall be admissible under this section to the amalgamating or the deme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny person claiming under him shall be debarred from enforcing against the transferee and persons claiming under him any right in respect of the property of which the transferee has taken or continued in possession, other than a right expressly provided by the terms of the contract : Provided that nothing in this section shall affect the rights or a transferee for consideration who has no notice of the contract or of the part performance thereof." 36. In view of above provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, vis-a-vis, the Income-tax Act to get the correct import of section 80-IB(10) of the Act we have to read along with section 80-IB(1) of the Act which also does not provide for any condition that the assessee should be owner of the land. The relevant provisions of sub-section (1) of section 80-IB, read as under: "80-IB. Deduction in respect of profits and gains from certain industrial undertakings other than infrastructure development undertakings. (1) Where the gross total income of an assessee includes any profits and gains derived from any business referred to in sub-sections (3) to (11) and (11A) (such business being hereinafter referred to as the eligible bus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Income-tax Act providing that : Any income of an authority constituted in India by or under any law enacted either for the purpose of dealing with and satisfying the need for housing accommodation or for the purpose of planning, development or improvement of cities, towns and villages, or for both. The Supreme Court while interpreting the provisions of section 10(20A) of the Act, the purpose of which is almost similar to the present section 80-IB, held in the case of Gujarat Industrial Development Corpn. ( supra ), at page No. 417 as under : "Any income falling within the ambit of the said clause would automatically slip out of the exigibility under the Income-tax Act. The clause pertains to any income of an authority constituted by or under any enacted law. This first limb of the clause is squarely available to the corporation as it has been constituted under the Gujarat Act. The second limb of the clause consists of two alternatives, of which the first is that the authority constituted by law should be for dealing with the need to provide housing accommodation. That alternative is obviously not available to the appellant corporation as nobody has a case that the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee. It is also well-settled that where there are two possible interpretations of a taxing provision the one which is favourable to the assessee should be preferred. What is ownership? The terms own , ownership , owned , are generic and relative terms. They have a wide and also a narrow connotation. The meaning would depend on the context in which the terms are used Black s Law Dictionary (6th edition), defines owner as under : Owner : The person in whom is vested the ownership, dominion, or title of property; proprietor. He who has dominion of a thing, real or personal, corporeal or incorporeal, which he has a right to enjoy and do with as he pleases, even to spoil or destroy it, as far as the law permits, unless he prevented by some agreement or covenant which restrains his right. The term is, however, a nomen generalissimum, and its meaning is to be gathered from the connection in which it is used, and from the subject-matter to which it is applied. The primary meaning of the word as applied to land is one who owns the fee and who has the right to dispose of the property, but the term also includes one having a possessory right to land or the person occup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to be assessed as income from house property or as income from other sources. To be assessable as income from house property within the meaning of section 22 of the Act, the property should be such of which the assessee is the owner . This Court upon a juristic analysis of the underlying scheme of the Act and resorting to contextual and purposive interpretation, also having reviewed several conflicting decisions of different High Courts, held that the liability to be assessed was fixed on a person who receives or is entitled to receive the income from the property in his own right. Vide para 55, this Court has held: We are conscious of the settled position that under the common law, owner means a person who has got valid title legally conveyed to him after complying with the requirements of law such as the Transfer of Property Act, Registration Act, etc. But, in the context of section 22 of the Income-tax Act, having regard to the ground realities and further having regard to the object of the Income-tax Act, namely, to tax the income , we are of the view, owner is a person who is entitled to receive income from the property in his own right. In R.B. Jodha Mal Kuthia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in section 32 has been given a wider meaning by holding that if an assessee was in possession of a property and had acquired dominion over it to the exclusion of others, he would be entitled to depreciation under section 32 irrespective of the legal title. In the present case the Development agreement and Agreement to sale the undertaking developing and building housing projects and claiming deduction of profits from such housing projects, there is, definitely, a dominion of the developer over the land to the exclusion of others inasmuch as possession of the land is given to the developer by the land owners to carry out the construction activity of the housing project. The assessee developer has complied with all the conditions as provided under section 80-IB(10) of the Act, so as to claim deduction. The assessee has also passed on the part consideration for acquiring the land through an Agreement to sale and in view of the provisions of section 2( 47 ) read with section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the assessee has completely performed his part of the contract and developed the housing project and transferred the flats/tenements to the buyers in view of Agree ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the owner of the project, though the title does not vest in it. 46. We may now briefly discuss certain cases referred to by the respective counsel at the time of hearing. In the case of Arun Excello Foundations (P.) Ltd. ( supra ) the conditions mentioned in this provision have elaborately been discussed by the Chennai Bench A in the above case ( supra ). There is no condition as regards to ownership in the provisions of section 80-IB(10) of the Act. 47. The Supreme Court in the case of Vadilal Lallubhai ( supra ) has observed that nothing more than what is stated in the statute can be read and added to find out a meaning of the provision. As the requirement of ownership is not there in the section 80-IB (10). It cannot be read into it for rejecting the claim of the deduction. 48. The Supreme Court in the case of Federation of Andhra Pradesh Chambers of Commerce Industry ( supra ), observed as under : "We are in no doubt whatever, therefore, that it is only land which is actually in use for an industrial purpose as defined in the said Act that can be assessed to non-agricultural assessment at the rate specified for land used for industrial purposes. The wid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hence, the assessee is eligible for deduction in terms of proviso to section 80-IA(4)( i ). It concluded that the proviso to section 80-IA(4) does not require that there should be a direct agreement between the transferee enterprise and the specified authority; assessee-company engaged in operation and maintenance of port infrastructure which was transferred by the developer to the assessee in accordance with the agreement with the specified authorities was eligible for deduction under section 80-IA." 52. The Hyderabad Bench of Tribunal has very categorically relied on the agreement between the transferee enterprise and the specified authority as the assessee-company was engaged in operation and maintenance of port infrastructure which was transferred by the developer to the assessee in accordance with the agreement and in view of these circumstances, it was held that the specified authority was eligible for deduction under section 80-IA of the Act. In the present case also, the developer is claiming deduction in view of the development agreement entered with the landowners as well as the prospective buyers. 53. The Tribunal, Pune Bench, in the case of Nirmiti Construction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat development and construction commenced after 1-10-1998. It is also seen that the assessee had incurred a sum of Rs. 6,000 towards the cleaning of land and also incurred an expense of Rs. 1,140 towards Pooja expense. These expenses do not indicate that development and construction of housing project had been commenced before 1-10-1998. Rs. 6,000 was incurred for cleaning the land, so that correct measurement of the land could be done. There is no material on record to show that the assessee had made any material change on the land before 1st day of October, 1998. From the above discussion, it would be clear that the assessee had commenced the development and construction of the housing project after 1st day of October, 1998, and completed the same before the specified date. There is no dispute that the assessee had fulfilled the remaining conditions under the law for claiming deduction under section 80-IB(10). Accordingly, the Assessing Officer is directed to allow the deduction to the assessee. It can be seen that in this case nothing was done by the assessee to hold it as a developer. The facts are entirely different and the issue before the Bench was also entirely different ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he expression derived from , as, for instance, in section 80J. In our view, since the expression of wider import, namely, attributable to , has been used, the Legislature intended to cover receipts from sources other than the actual conduct of the business of generation and distribution of electricity. 59. The Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of B.M. Parmar ( supra ) held that In the matter of tax, the statute is to be interpreted strictly. A provision has to be construed keeping in view the purpose and object for which it is enacted. The concept of commercial principles on business practice would not be relevant unless it is found to be inevitable. 60. The Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Strawboard Manufacturing Co. Ltd. ( supra ) and the Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Strawboard Manufacturing Co. Ltd. [1975] 98 ITR 78 holding an interpretation clause which extends the meaning of a word does not take away its ordinary meaning. An interpretation clause is not meant to prevent the word receiving its ordinary, popular and natural sense whenever that would be properly applicable, but to enable the word as used in the Act, when there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 (Ahd.) of 2006], Kismat Construction [IT Appeal No. 2823 (Ahd.) of 2006], Rutu Developers [IT Appeals No. 2856 (Ahd.) of 2006] and Sahjanand Developers [IT Appeal No. 672 (Ahd.) of 2007], a question has also been raised by the revenue that the profit earned by the assessee are not for developing and building housing project alone but for the sale of extra FSI, which has not been utilized for developing and building housing project. On a perusal of the provisions of section 80-IB(10), we find that it is not mandatory requirement to fully utilize permissible FSI; there is no condition as to FSI under the scheme of the provisions of section 80-IB(10) of the Act; there is no question of selling unused FSI to the individual buyer for each project and also there is no question of calculating the profitability on FSI as the same has not been contemplated under section 80-IB(10) of the Act. On verification of the sale deeds executed in favour of buyers of the residential houses, it is clear that the assessee had made this sale deed for sale of plot of land. Further, on verification of development agreement with the landowner, we find that here also the reference is with respect to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nits have not been constructed or developed but being sold directly, although as an unrestrictive bundle of rights attached with the sale of land plot. As aforesaid, there is no requirement as to the FSI under the scheme of provisions of section 80-IB(10). In any case the assessee has not sold FSI of plot, even if the unutilized FSI rights are available with the assessee, it is the only way left out of utilizing such unutilized FSI is to make construction on top of the ground floor, which is already being sold to prospective buyers. With this so-called unutilized FSI rights, if the assessee wishes to make further construction then it will be practically impossible as the assessee is left with no easement rights for making construction or access to go on top of the ground floor as the ground level rights are already sold to prospective customer. In this situation it would be practically impossible to make either construction or to give access for construction made. Thus, the concept of element of unutilized FSI sold is imaginary and based on surmises and conjunctures. 66. In the case of Ashirwad Enterprises [IT Appeal No. 2527 (Ahd.) of 2006], the assessee s second dispute is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per cent by the Assessing Officer cannot be said to be unjustified. It was, accordingly, rightly upheld by the CIT(A). His order is, thus, confirmed. 70. In case of Sahjanand Developers ( supra ), the assessee s other disputes were against the addition of Rs. 4,780 for purchase of fan and Rs. 3,908 for telephone expenses as they are of earlier years. As regards the purchase of fan the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee stating that the assessee had claimed deduction under section 32 and thus no further deduction is allowable. As regards telephone expenses the Assessing Officer stated that the assessee is following mercantile system of accounting and the expenses pertain to earlier is not allowable. Since the assessee could not bring any material or evidence to defend its claim, the CIT(A) upheld both the additions. Before us also, the assessee could not substantiate its claim by bringing any material on record but simply stated that its claim may be allowed. We, accordingly, uphold the orders of the revenue authorities and dismiss this ground of the assessee. 71. Charging of interest under sections 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D being consequential and, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
