9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 827X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... below committed substantial error of law in allowing deduction of Rs. 79,42,442/- under section 80HHBA notwithstanding the fact that the said receipt was from the sale of scrap which has nothing to do with a housing project awarded to the assessee. (b) Whether the learned Tribunal below committed substantial error of law in approving the deletion of interest accrued in favour of three companies on the ground that before accrual of interest the Board of Directors had waived interest by totally overlooking the fact that in that event there was no justification of showing those interest in the account of the company. &nbs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat profits and gains from the sale of scrap materials are eligible to deduction in an amount equal to twenty per cent under section 80HH, inasmuch as such gains or profits are derived from the industrial undertaking and includible in the gross total income of the assessee and the question relatable to the profit on the sale of scrap is thus answered in favour of the assessee." So far as question no.2 is concerned, the views expressed by the learned Tribunal are as follows: "6.2. In the case before us, there is no dispute to the fact that the assessee-company had passed requisite Board Resolutions not to charge interest from aforesaid 3 parties on the adv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... up the money which had accrued to it. It cannot be said, in the circumstances, that the interest amount had not accrued to the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal was right in taking the view it did in respect of the assessment years 1969-70, 1970-71 and 1971-72. In the case of the assessment year 1968-69, however, the resolution was passed before the expiry of the accounting year and though the finding of the Tribunal is that the said waiver was not actuated by any commercial considerations, yet learned counsel for the Revenue did not press the Revenue's case so far as this assessment year is concerned." In so far as the question no.3 is concerned, the views expressed by the learned Tribunal are as follows: &n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e above Som Datt Plaza Project, let out area was only 16143.54 Sft. and the balance area of 58648.46 Sft. has been sold or lying vacant. The Ld. Authorised Representative of the assessee further submitted that the assessee has himself disallowed the proportionate expenses towards registration. The ld. Departmental Representative could not controvert the above submissions of the Ld. Authorised Representative of the assessee. 16. Considering the above facts, we are of the considered view that there is no reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, we uphold the same and reject ground No.3 of the appeal taken by the Department." It was essentially a quest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
