TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee. Deduction u/s 80P(2)(vi) – Held that:- The decision relied upon does not apply to the Appellate authorities – thus, the matter is remitted back to the AO for examination of the claim of the assessee as per the provisions of law and in particular Sec. 80P(2)(vi) of the Act – Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No.2300/Mum/2013, I.T.A. No.2493/Mum/2013 - - - Dated:- 23-7-2014 - Shri N. K. Billaiya And Shri Vivek Varma,JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri H. N. Motiwala, Shri Piyush Chhajed For the Respondent : Shri Jeevanlal Lavidiya ORDER Per N. K. Billaiya, AM: These cross appeals by the assessee and the Revenue are directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-29 , Mumbai dt. 8.1.2013 pertaining to A.Y ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fact that the labour charges paid to all the parties exceeded the threshold limit of ₹ 20,000/- and when the assessee has separately debited the purchases of ₹ 3,23,16,515/- in the P L A/c, the question of reducing the cost of materials from the labour charge does not arise. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not discussing whether the amount on which the relief was allowed consisted of any material cost or was below the threshold limit of ₹ 20,000/- 4. The assessee is in the business of construction. For the year, the return was filed on 14.2.2011 declaring total income at ₹ 1,02,277/-. The return was selected for scrutiny assessment and statutory notices ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the AO has failed to consider the details furnished by the assessee during the course of the assessment proceedings. It is the say of the Ld. Counsel that full details were provided to the AO in respect of parties where no tax was deducted at source. The Ld. Counsel further argued that the AO has failed to consider the details furnished by the assessee and further stated that the action of the AO in disallowing the balance amount of labour charges paid without TDS u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act is not proper and the Ld. CIT(A) further erred in confirming the same. 8. The Ld. Departmental Representative fairly conceded that these details need re-verification at the assessment stage. 9. We have carefu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Ld. CIT(A). Ground No. 3 4 are accordingly dismissed. 12. Ground No. 5 relates to the claim of the assessee u/s. 80P(2)(vi) of the Act. 13. This claim was made before the Ld. CIT(A) by raising an additional ground. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the claim of the assessee stating that this claim was not made by the assessee in the return of income. The Ld. CIT(A) relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz Ltd. 284 ITR 323. In our considered view, the ratio laid down by the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court does not apply to the Appellate authorities. We, therefore, restore this issue to the file of the AO. The AO is directed to examine the claim of the assessee as per the provisions of law and in p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
