TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 367X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DABAD-C) decided in favour of assessee Expenditure on scientific research u/s 35 – AO disallowed on ground that the project was not completed and not capitalized as on 31.3.2003, then the amount is not used for the purpose of scientific research – Held that:- Section 35 does not require that the assessee's excess assets should aloe be capitalized in the books of account or put to use. Further A.O. has allowed the claim u/s 35 in the subsequent year; but only on the balance cost because the claim for the AY under consideration is under dispute. In favour of assessee Whether share in the loss of AOP can be set off against the other business income - Held that:- As decided in case of Ramanlal Madanlal (1978 (2) TMI 54 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT) when the loss is eligible for carry forward and set off as per the provisions of Chapter VI of the I T Act in the hands of the AOP, then no such claim can be allowed in the hands of the member of the AOP. In favour of revenue Deduction u/s 80IA(4) – work contract or not – Held that:- Status of the assessee can be determined from the terms and conditions of the contract whether it is a rate contract or even a labour contract or a lump-sum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cioeconomic thinking. It is an undisputed fact that no business can be conducted in hostile, socioeconomic environment. The expenses incurred on the activities which create a suitable environment and impression with reference to image and smooth functioning of the business activity of the assessee by gaining the trust of the employees as well as the local public in the affairs of the assessee company. In favour of assessee Disallowance of relief u/s 91 – DTAA – Relief of double tax paid in the country outside India as well as in India - Tax paid in Bhutan – There is no agreement under section 90 for the relief or avoidance of double taxation - Held that:- Since the average rate of tax in India is higher than the Bhutan; therefore, the relief u/s 91 is allowable at the rate of average tax paid in Bhutan being lower rate of tax than in India. The computation of relief by the A.O. is contrary to the relevant provisions of the Act as provided u/s 91 of the act. The A.O. has computed the income from Bhutan operations at Rs. 68.63 Crores and included the same in the total income of the assessee, then the relief u/s 91 is allowable @ 8.53% on the said income, which is subjected to tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ajority of the issues are common in these appeals; therefore, we have heard these appeals together and accordingly disposed off by this composite order. 3. First we take up the appeal in ITA No.6438/Mum./2008 for the AY 2003-04 wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. In the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 43,915 being employees' contribution to Provident Fund, paid late 2. On facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) has erred in upholding the disallowance made by the assessing officer under section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of Octroi charges of Rs. 2,55,278/-,. On facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) has erred in upholding the disallowance made by the assessing officer under section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of interest accrued but not due of Rs. 36,49,315/-. 3. On facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) has erred in upholding the view of the assessing officer, that claim in respect of capital expenditure incurred on scientific resear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , which have been followed by the Tribunal in series of decisions. He has relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Avion Systems Inc. [IT Appeal No.3935/Mum/2009] as well as the decision in the case of Pl Drugs Pharmaceuticals Ltd. [IT Appeal No. 1866/Mum/2009]. The ld AR has further contended that though there was a delay in depositing the amount of employees contribution to the PF; however, the payment has been made before the due date of filling of the return and even within the financial year itself. 5.1 On the other hand, the ld DR has submitted that a similar disallowance was made for the AY 1999-00 which has been upheld by the Tribunal in assessee's own case. He has relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 6. We have considered the rival submissions and the relevant material on record. At the outset, we note that in the case of Pl Drugs Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal has considered and decided an identical issue in favour of the assessee in paras 4 to 6 as under: "4. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and duly Considered factual matrix of the case as also the applicable legal position. 5. A co-or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 438 is to be allowed as a deduction. In the case of Radhakrishna Foodland Pvt. Ltd. v ACIT in ITA No.4211/ Mum./20 (assessment year 2003-04), the Tribunal by order dated 11th February 2008, held following the view taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Vinay Cement Ltd. (2007) 213 CTR 268 that the employees' contribution paid before the due date for filing the return of income is allowable as a deduction. There is thus a series of orders of the Mumbal Benches of the Tribunal on the issue and respectfully following them we delete the disallowance of Rs. 14,02,512/-, out of which Rs. 5,62,450/- was paid after the due date but before the grace period and Rs. 8,40,062/- was paid after the grace period but before the due date for filing the return of income. The first ground is accordingly allowed." 6. The above observations, with which we are in respect agreement, apply to the fact situation before us as well. In this view of the matter, as long as even employees' contribution to Pr and ESIC are paid by the assessee before the due date of filing the income tax return, the same are to be allowed as deduction in computation of income of the assessee. It is an undisputed pos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f income and therefore, the same is not payable. Hence, no disallowance can be made u/s 43B. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the following decisions: (i) Grasim Industries Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [1999] 64 TTJ 357 (Mum.) (ii) Samtel Colour Ltd v. Dy. CIT [2006] (iii) Gujarat Toll Road Investment Co Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2010] 125 ITD 159 (Ahd.) 8.2 The ld. DR on the other hand relied upon the orders of the authorities below and submitted that when the assessee has not produced any documentary proof of payment of octroi, then the same is not allowable as per the provisions u/s 43B. 8.3 As regards the interest to UTI on convertible debenture, the ld. DR has submitted that though the assessee has booked the expenditure on interest; but was not actually paid before the due date of filling of the return; therefore, the same is not allowable. 9. Having considered the rival submissions and careful perusal of the relevant material on record, we find that as far as the octroi due payment is concerned, the assessee has produced the relevant invoices/challans which show that the octroi due was paid in the shape of adjustment against the advance payment to the octroi agen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons of s. 43B of the IT Act, 1961 were attracted in the instant case and in this view of the matter interest of Rs. 6,08,03,230 claimed by the assessee is not allowable under s. 43B of the IT Act, 1961. The learned CIT(A) confirmed the above disallowance, however, on a different ground," 10.1 Following the decision (supra), we decide this issue in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 11. Ground no.3 is regarding capital expenditure incurred on scientific research and claimed u/s 35 of the I T Act. 11.1 The assessee has incurred certain expenses on scientific research development which has been recognised by the appropriate authorities. The assessee has shown the said expenditure in the books of account as on 31.3.2003 waiting capitalization. The Assessing Officer has disallowed the claim of the assessee on the ground that the assessee has not capitalised the said expenditure in the books of account and shown the same as item waiting capitalisation. 11.2 On appeal, the CIT(A) has confirmed the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on similar grounds that when the project was not completed as on 31.3.2003, then the amount is not used for the purpose of scienti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the claim for the AY under consideration is under dispute. 14. In view of these facts and circumstances of the case as well as in the decisions as relied upon by the ld AR of the assessee, the disallowance made by the authority below is not justified when finally the Assessing Officer found that the expenditure on the R D centre is eligible for deduction u/s 35 of the IT Act in the subsequent year. Accordingly, we allow the claim of the assessee. 15. Ground no.4 is regarding the disallowance of payment to Club. 15.1 At the time of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that this issue was covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for the AY 1992-93 to 1995-06. Further, this issue was covered by various decisions of the Hon'ble High Courts as well as the Tribunal. He has referred a series of decisions on this issue. 15.2 However, the ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that in the second round of litigation, the CIT(A) has allowed the claim of the assessee in respect of the payment to club for corporate Membership fee and therefore, this issue has become infructuous and the same may be dismissed, as not pressed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [2007] 290 ITR 697. 17. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. The arguments advanced by the ld AR of the assessee are on the point that since the assessed income of AOP is a loss; therefore, there is no tax chargeable to the income of the AOP and accordingly, the shares in the loss includable in the income of the assessee, who is a member of the AOP. 17.1 We do not agree with the contention of the assessee, primarily because the reason that the income of the AOP is chargeable to tax at the maximum marginal rate. It is pertinent to mention here that the income of the AOP is assessable to tax at the maximum marginal tax or higher rate of tax because of the status of the AOP and not because of profit or loss of the AOP. 17.2 Section 67A explicitly provides the computation of total income of such association or body being profit or loss. Therefore, the expression 'income of the association or body' includes profits as well as loss. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Lalita M. Bhat (supra), has considered an identical issue and held in para 9 as under: "9. We have perused the decision of the Calcutta High Court in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... round no. 6 is regarding the deduction u/s 80IA(4). 19.1 During the assessment, vide letter dated 14.2.2005, the assessee has made a claim of deduction u/s 80IA of the IT Act with respect to business income earned from execution of projects relating to development of infrastructure facility such as dams, roads, power projects etc. The assessee contended before the Assessing Officer that the assessee is engaged in development of infrastructure facility as defined in explanation to sub. Sec. 4 of sec. 80IA. In support of its contention, the assessee relied upon the order of the Tribunal in the case of Patel Engg. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2005] 94 ITD 411 (Mum.) 19.2 The assessee further submitted before the Assessing Officer that for the AY 2001-02 and 2002-03, the CIT(A) has allowed the claim of the assessee under section 80IA. The Assessing Officer did not accept the contention of the assessee and noted that the assessee is a civil contractor executing large infrastructure projects like construction of dams, tunnels, underground structures, roads, express ways, power projects etc. In all such projects, the development authority is invariably government, semi government organisation or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inance Act, 2009 in sec. 80IA and decided that the assessee therein was a developer and not work contractor. Thus, the ld AR has submitted that even otherwise, the matter is required to be reconsidered by the authorities below in the light of the retrospective amendment in section 80IA of Finance Act, 2009. 20.1 On the other hand, the ld DR has submitted that the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) has examined the relevant facts in respect of the claim of deduction u/s 80IA. The CIT(A) has considered the retrospective amendment by the Finance Act, 2007 whereby the Explanation below to sec. 80IA was inserted and accordingly given a finding of fact that the assessee is not an investor in the project but only a work contract, who has executed the work on behalf of the government authority, local body and other statutory bodies. He has relied upon the orders of the authorities below and referred the contention of the Assessing Officer as produced in para 30 of the impugned order as under: "30 While rejecting the claim of the appellant u/s. 80IA(4) of the Act, the AO contended/concluded as under a. Upon completion of the contractual obligations, the appellant is being paid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect and while part of the work maybe subcontracted out, the builder remains the builder and does not become the developer. The idea for the projects has originated from the government. They have conceived the idea, put it together, raised the funds and then found the person to carry-out the activity, according to the specific terms and conditions and through the procedure of calling for tenders from such persons that qualify. The appellant is therefore not a developer by any stretch of terminology. It is not developing the infrastructure project, but is merely constructing or building in for someone else as per the guidelines and specification provided." 21. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. There is no dispute that the assessee has executed the work of construction of dams, tunnels, bridges, roads etc. under the agreement with the development authorities which are government, semi-government organisations or local authorities. The provisions of section 80IA provide deduction in respect of profit and gain from infrastructural undertaking or enterprise engaged in infrastructure development etc. The benefit of section 80IA is avail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... project including housing or other activities being an integral part of the highway project; (c) a water supply project, water treatment system, irrigation project, sanitation and sewerage system or solid waste management system; (d) a port, airport, inland waterway [, inland port or navigational channel in the sea];] 21.1 As per the Explanation, the infrastructure facilities means a road including toll road, a bridge or a rail system; a highway project including housing and other activities; a water supply project, water treatment system, irrigation project; a port, airport, inland waterway or navigational channel in the sea. 21.2 As per the Explanation to the end of section 80IA, the benefit of deduction has been excluded in relation to the business referred in sub-sec. (4) which is in the nature of work contract awarded by any person including central or state governments and executed by the undertaking, or enterprises. The explanation to sec. 80IA has been substituted by the retrospective amendment by Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 w.e.f 1.4.2000 as under: "Explanation: for the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that nothing contained in this section shall apply in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ility or developing, operating and maintaining a new infrastructure facility. The claim of the assessee is that the work carried out is in the nature of developing the infrastructure facilities. Thus, the issue before us is very limited only with relation to the question whether the work carried out by the assessee under the agreements/contracts with the Central Government or State Government and other statutory bodies are in the nature of developing the infrastructure facilities which does not fall in the category of work contract awarded by the Central or State Government or any other statutory or local authorities. The nature of work/agreement has to be found only from the terms and conditions of contract/agreement as entered into between the parties under which the work has been executed. Thus, it is the contract which exhibits the intention of the parties and the nature of the work undertaken by the executing party. It is a factual question and can be decided on the basis of facts and circumstances of each case and particularly the nature and terms and conditions of the each contract under which the each project work has been executed. Therefore, there cannot be any precedent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er. Further, the rights and duties of the executing parties can be ascertained from the terms and conditions of the contract. The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), after examination of the contract has given a finding that the assessee is engaged in the work contract and is not entitled for deduction u/s 80IA(4). Nothing has been produced before us by the assessee to controvert the finding of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals); even the assessee has not produced a single contract/agreement under which the project, which is the subject matter of the controversy are carried out by the assessee. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) on this issue. 23. Ground no.7 is regarding the denial of deduction u/s 80M by reducing the pro rata interest attributable to the dividend income. 23.1 The assessee claimed deduction u/s 80M with respect to the dividend received from mutual funds and from shares of Rs. 26,77,666/-. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the deduction u/s 80M is allowable on net income after apportionment of expenses as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Distributors (Baroda ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Reliance Utilities Power Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 340 and submitted that when the interest free funds were available to the assessee which are sufficient to meet its investment, then it can be presumed that the investments have been made from the interest free funds; even though at the same time loans have been raised by the assessee. 25.1 On the other hand, the ld. DR has submitted that the Assessing Officer has brought out the details of borrowed funds and the investments; therefore, the interest attributable to the funds used for investment has to be reduced from the dividend income for the purpose of deduction u/s 80M. He has relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 26. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. There is no quarrels on this issue that the deduction u/s 80M is allowed on the net dividend income; however, the expenditure which is directly related to the earning of the dividend income has to be deducted. The Assessing Officer has apportioned the interest expenditure on the basis of borrowed funds and the total investments and accordingly, worked out the interest of the borrowed funds at 8.32% and applied the sam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Officer cannot make any adjustment in the book profit as per the provisions of sec. 115JB except referred to in Explanation to sec 115JB, which is only in respect of the income to which the provisions of sec. 10 to 12 apply. He has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT [2002] 255 ITR 273. 30. On the other hand, the ld DR has relied upon the orders of the authority below and submitted that when the assessee has claimed the exclusion of the share in the profit of AOP while computing the book profit u/s 115JB in the earlier years, then the shares in the loss is also not allowed to be reduced. 31. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. There is no quarrel on the point that other than the adjustments as provided under section 115JB, the Assessing Officer cannot make any adjustment in the book profit arrived at as per the accounts prepared in accordance with Schedule VI of the Companies Act. However, in the earlier years, the assessee itself has claimed that the shares in the AOP should be excluded while computing the book profit as per the provisions of sec. 115JB and on the simila ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of interest accrued but not due of Rs. 36,49,315/-. 7. On facts and in the circumstances the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred1n holding that the claim of share of loss from AOP amounting to Rs.4,73,00,000/-, under the provisions of section 70 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not allowable, thereby confirming the action of the assessing officer. 8. On facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming disallowance of Appellant's claim for deduction u/s 80-lA(4) of the Income tax Act on the ground that the Appellant had developed infrastructure facilities in the status of a Works Contractor' and not as an 'Enterprise' engaged in the business of development of such infrastructure facilities as contended by the Appellant; the claim of the Appellant for deduction of profits derived from the eligible profits be upheld, it having satisfied all the conditions prescribed in the said section. 9. The learned CIT (A) erred in upholding non allowance of relief in full under section 91 of the I.T. Act, made by the assessing officer, being credit for taxes paid in Bhutan, as claimed by the Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iness of the assessee and not a general software. Accordingly, the expenditure has been laid out for acquiring the intangible assets to be used by the assessee for a number of years and therefore, the same will have an enduring benefit. However, since this intangible asset is part and parcel of computation; therefore, the assessee is entitled for depreciation for the year under consideration at 60%. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow the depreciation on this amount at 60% in view of the decision of the Special Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Datacraft India Ltd. (supra). 39 Ground no.3 is regarding disallowance of general expenses being non business expenses. 39.1 The assessee has claimed general expenses of Rs. 6,20,571/- incurred at Bhutan Site. The nature of expenses is payment for various pooja, donation for local festivals and other benevolent activities. The Assessing Officer disallowed these expenses holding that these are not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business of the assessee company and hence, not allowable. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has confirmed the disallowance made by the Assessing Offic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st u/s 14A. 43. We have heard the ld. AR as well as the ld. DR and considered the relevant material on record. This issue is required to be reconsidered by the Assessing Officer in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2010] 328 ITR 81. Accordingly, we set aside this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding the same afresh In the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court cited supra. 44. Ground no.5 is regarding disallowance of payment to club. 45. This issue is common to the ground No. 4 raised for the Assessment Year 2003-04. Therefore, when the CIT(A) has allowed the claim of the assessee for the Assessment Year 2003-04, then in view of the decision as relied upon by the ld. AR, we decide this issue in favour of the assessee. 46. Ground no.6 is regarding disallowance made u/s 43B in respect of interest accrued but not due. 47. We have heard the parties. This ground is common to the ground no. 2 raised by the assessee for the Assessment Year 2003-04. Accordingly, in view of the findings for the Assessment Year 2003-04, we decide this issue in favour of the assessee and ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the countries outside India as well as in India and there is no agreement u/s 90 of the I T Act for the relief or avoidance of double taxation. We quote sec 91(1) as under: 91. (1) If any person who is resident in India in any previous year proves that, in respect of his income which accrued or arose during that previous year outside India (and which is not deemed to accrue or arise in India), he has paid in any country with which there is no agreement under section 90 for the relief or avoidance of double taxation, income-tax, by deduction or otherwise, under the law in force in that country, he shall be entitled to the deduction from the Indian income-tax payable by him of a sum calculated on such doubly taxed income at the Indian rate of tax or the rate of tax of the said country, whichever is the lower, or at the Indian rate of tax if both the rates are equal. 55.1 The benefit of tax paid outside India is calculated by taking into account the rate of tax in India and rate of tax in the other such country whichever is lower in respect of the income which is subjected to double taxation. The Assessing Officer has computed the relief u/s 91 which is reproduced by the CIT(A) in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessing Officer to give relief u/s 91 by calculating the average rate of tax of 8.53% on Rs. 68,63,57,400/- subject to the total tax paid /payable in either of the countries. 56. Ground no.10 is regarding levy of interest u/s 234D. 57. We have heard the ld AR of the assessee as well as the ld. DR and considered the relevant material on record. The ld. AR has submitted that the return of income was processed u/s 143(1) on 15.3.2003 quantifying the refund of Rs. 9,06,02,130/-. However, no refund order was issued till the completion of the assessment u/s 143(3). The ld. AR has further contended that till date, the assessee is not in receipt of the money of refund quantified before the intimation passed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Therefore, no interest is chargeable to tax u/s 234D of the Act when the assessee has not received any refund. 58. On the other hand, the ld. DR has relied upon the orders of the authorities below and submitted that in view of the retrospective amended provisions of section 234D by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f 1.4.2003, the interest is levyable in the case where the assessments were completed after 1.4.2003. 59. We have considered the rival submissions an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant's claim for deduction u/s 80-IA(4) of the Income tax Act on the ground that the Appellant had developed infrastructure facilities in the status of a 'Works Contractor' and not as an 'Enterprise' engaged in the business of development of such infrastructure facilities as contended by the Appellant; the claim of the Appellant for deduction of profits derived from the eligible profits be upheld, it having satisfied all the conditions prescribed in the said section. 5. On facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred in not accepting the adjustments made by the Appellant in the computation of its book profits u/s 11 5JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 61. Ground no.1 is regarding disallowance u/s 14A, which is common as ground no.4 for the Assessment Year 2004-05. Accordingly, in view of our finding for the Assessment Year 2004-05, we set aside this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer. 62. Ground no.2 is regarding disallowance of club expenses which is also common as ground no. 4 for the Assessment Year 2003-04. Therefore, in view of our findings for the AY 2003-04 2004-05, we decide this issue in favour of the assessee for the y ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e has not produced any records to show that this amount has already included in the income of the assessee in the earlier year. Therefore, in the absence of the relevant details to show the compliance of mandatory conditions as prescribed u/s 36(2), we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authorities on this issue. 67. Ground no.3 is regarding disallowance of loss from AOP, which is common as ground no.5 for the Assessment Year 2003-04. Accordingly, in view of our findings for the Assessment Year 2003-04 2004-05, we decide this issue in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. 68. Ground no.4 is regarding disallowance u/s 80IA(4) which is common as ground no.6 for the Assessment Year 2003-04. Accordingly, in view of our findings for the Assessment Year 2003-04 and 2004-05, we decide this issue in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. 69. Ground no.5 is regarding adjustment made in respect of the amount of disallowance u/s 14A while computing book profit u/s 115JB. 70. The Assessing Officer has made the addition of Rs. 319.51 lacs being disallowance u/s 14A while computing the book profit u/s 115JB. On appeal, the Commissioner of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law, the learned CIT (A) has erred in upholding the disallowance made by the assessing officer under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs.2,79,50,000/-. On facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred in not accepting the adjustments made by the Appellant in the computation of its book profits u/s 115JB of the Income Tax Act. 2. On facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. Cit(A) erred in holding that the claim of share of loss from AOP amounting to Rs.4,73,00,000/-, under the provisions of section 70 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not allowable, thereby confirming the action of the assessing officer. 3. On facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming disallowance of Appellant's claim for deduction u/s 80-IA(4) of the Income tax Act on the ground that the Appellant had developed infrastructure facilities in the status of a 'Works Contractor' and not as an 'Enterprise' engaged in the business of development of such infrastructure facilities as contended by the Appellant; the claim of the Appellant for deduction of profits derived from the eligible profi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
