Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Jayvantsinh N. Vaghela, Prop of Yuvraj Developers & M/s. Kailash Developers Versus Income Tax Officer

Estimation of NP - Additions at 12% of the receipt - Held that:- In the present case, we are therefore of the view that the net profit of 5.55% for the year under consideration also cannot be considered for working out the average profits because, it is after considering the land leveling expenses of ₹ 24.24 lacs which is also disputed by the Revenue. In such a situation, when the books of accounts are rejected, then for estimating the profits, for the reasons stated hereinabove, we are of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

no interference to the order of ld. CIT(A) in estimating the net profits @ 12% of the Revenue from Kailash Developers is called for - Decided against assessee

Denial of deduction u/s.80IB(10) - Non obtaining completion certificate within a period of 4 years - Held that:- When the housing project was approved on 10.03.2004 by the competent authority, condition for obtaining completion certificate within a period of 4 years from the date of approval being eligible for deduction u/s.80I .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

iled by the Assessee are against the order of CIT(A)-XV, Ahmedabad dated 24.01.2011 for A.Ys. 2007-08 & 2008-09. 2. The relevant facts as culled out from the material on record are as under. 3. Assessee is an individual and proprietor of Yograj Developers and Kailash Developers, which are stated to be engaged in the business as developers for construction of housing projects. Assessee electronically filed his return of income for A.Y. 2007-08 on 28.11.2007 declaring total income at ₹ 8 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nically filed the return of income for A.Y. 2008-09 on 29/08/2008 declaring total income of ₹ 5,76,870/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter assessment was framed u/s.143(3) of the Act vide order dated 27.12.2010 and the total income was determined at ₹ 20,64,430/-. Aggrieved by the order of A.O., assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A) who vide order dated 22.07.2011 granted partial relief to assessee. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), assessee filed app .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

appeal before Hon ble Gujarat High Court. Hon ble Gujarat High Court in Tax Appeal No. 853 & 854/A/2013 order dated 22.10.2013 condoned the delayed filing of appeal and also quashed the order of Tribunal dated 22.03.2013 in ITA No. 563 & 564/A/2012 (supra) and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal to decide the appeal afresh on merits. The order of Hon ble High Court reads as under: 2.0. Both these appeals have been preferred by the common appellant -assessee challenging the impugned .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n appellant herein -assessee preferred appeals before the learned ITAT being ITA Nos. 563 of 2012 and 564 of 2012. There was a delay of 328 days in preferring the appeal against the order passed by the learned CIT(A) with respect to assessment year 2007-08 and there was a delay of 158 days in preferring the appeal against the order passed by the learned CIT (A) with respect to assessment year 2008-09. The assessee requested the learned Tribunal to condone the delay by submitting that earlier tax .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

it was requested to condone the delay. By impugned common order, the learned Tribunal has refused to condone the delay and has dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation observing that there is inordinate delay in preferring the appeals and affidavit of the Income Tax Practitioner is not filed. 2.2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common order passed by the learned Tribunal in dismissing aforesaid appeals on the ground of limitation and not conedoning the delay of 328 da .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

onsidering the appeals on merits. It is required to be noted that there is no observation by the learned Tribunal that there was any deliberate delay on the part of the assessee and /or mere was any mala fide intention on the part of the assessee in not preferring the appeals within a period of limitation, The reasoning given by the learned Tribunal that the assessee has not filed the affidavit of Income Tax Practitioner in support of the affidavits filed by the assessee is concerned, it is requ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

there was any mala fide intention on the part of the assessee in not preferring the appeal within the period of limitation and / or in filing the appeals belatedly. As observed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Another vs. Mst. Katiji and Others reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. It is further observed by the Hon ble Supreme Court that refusing to condone delay can result in a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

smissing the same on the ground of limitation 5.0. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, both these appeals succeed and the impugned common order passed by the ITAT dated 22.3.2013 in ITA Nos. 563 and 564/AHD/2012 with respect to the assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09 is hereby quashed and set aside and the delay caused in preferring the respective appeals is hereby condoned and the matter is remitted to the learned ITAT to decide and dispose of the said appeals in accordance w .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the Assessing Officer. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in confirming disallowance of ₹ 8,67,447/- u/s 80IB(10) without appreciating the deduction u/s 80IB (10) for the very same project was allowed by the Assessing Officer himself in A.Y. 2005-06 in order u/s 143(3) and that non receipt of BU permission was not due to fault of the appellant. 7. 1st ground is with respect to making additions at 12% of the receipt. 8. During the course of assessment proceedings, A.O noticed tha .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the net profit in respect of Kailash Developers not be estimated at 48.32% as being the net profit declared by the Assessee in case of the project of Yuvraj Developer . The explanation of the Assessee for different net profits in both the projects inter alia being that the projects of different types, in different locations and the expenditure towards land leveling expenses was incurred in case of Kailash Developer but no such expenditure was required for Yuvraj Park, was not found acceptable t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

c. prior to 07.10.2006. He was therefore of the view that when the land was not ready for construction till 07.10.2006, the incurring of expenditure towards construction material, purchase of wooden items, doors etc. for the purpose of project cannot be accepted and the expenditure shown by the Assessee was not at all reliable and that the major part of purchases made for Kailash Developer was incurred prior to the land being ready for construction and the expenditure was diverted to Yuvraj Proj .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

IT(A) who granted partial relief to the Assessee by holding as under:- 9. From the facts on record it is seen that the appellant even during the appellate proceedings could not. produce single bill of Yuvraj Developers. Neither did he produce his books of accounts and vouchers of the two concerns during appellate proceedings though he was specifically required to through this office notice dated 1 1.1.2011. The appellant has also not been able to given any convincing explanation of producing lan .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Developers where the appellant is claiming 100% tax free profit u/s.80IB(10) were diverted in the concern - Kailash Developers which was doing the project of industrial godowns. The appellant did not produce any books of accounts or any bills during the appellate proceedings of any concern so the conclusions drawn by the AO stand and therefore I have no alternative but to reject the books of accounts of the appellant before which an opportunity has also been given to the appellant. From the tab .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ore us. 10. Before us, ld. A.R. reiterated the submissions made before A.O. and CIT(A) and further submitted that estimating the profits @ 12% of the total receipts as the net profits of Kailash Developers will be inappropriate and that the addition on account of estimation @ 12% of profits as against the average profits of 11.3% is on a higher side and is without any basis and therefore the same needs to be deleted. Ld. D.R. on the other hand supported the order of A.O. and CIT(A) and further p .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

profits of which are taxable. We find that ld. CIT(A) while deciding the issue has noted and given a finding that assessee did not produce the books of accounts nor vouchers of the two concerns either during assessment proceedings and did not produce it even during appellate proceedings though the assessee was specifically asked to produce the same. It is also noted by ld. CIT(A) that assessee has not given any convincing explanation of land leveling expenses bills of October 2006 on one hand an .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

te the income. From the statement of profits of 5 years that has been submitted by the assessee and reproduced by ld. CIT(A) at page no.5 of the order, it is seen that based on the net profit for the immediate preceding year, the impugned year and subsequent three assessment years, the assessee has worked out the average net profit at 11.3%, which is after including the net profit of 5.5% for the year under consideration being the year under dispute. We are of the view, that when once the books .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ideration also cannot be considered for working out the average profits because, it is after considering the land leveling expenses of ₹ 24.24 lacs which is also disputed by the Revenue. In such a situation, when the books of accounts are rejected, then for estimating the profits, for the reasons stated hereinabove, we are of the view that the average profits should be determined but after excluding the net profit for the impugned year and if that is considered, the average profit (after e .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

is dismissed. 12. Ground No.2 is with respect to denial of deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the Act. 12.1 A.O. noted that assessee has claimed deduction of ₹ 8,67,417/- u/s.80IB(10) of the Act. A.O. on perusing the details and documents furnished by assessee noticed that assessee had entered into agreement with land owners for construction of housing project, the land being owned by landowners, application for housing plan was made by land owners and the permission for development was also receiv .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the order of A.O. by holding as under: 12. The point of ownership of land not entitling the appellant for the deduction has to be seen in the light of the decision of Hon ble ITAT Bench A Ahmedabad dated 7.11.2008 in the case of M/s. Shakti Corporation,-Baroda in ITA No.1503/Ahd/2008 in AY 2005-06. According to this decision Development Agreement has to be referred to and if it is found that the assessee has practically purchased the land and acquired dominant control and has developed the proje .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eared as attorney holder of the land owner - the society . However perusal of one of the sale deeds of land submitted during appellate proceedings dated 22.8.2005 shows that it was the son (Vanrajsinh Dilipsinh Vaghela) of the appellant who acted as the power of attorney holder of the land owners and not the appellant. This sale deed has been entered into by one of the members named Vyas Mukesh Kalidas with the land owners (1) Meenaben R Patel (2) K.R.Patel (3) B. R.Patel - power of attorney hol .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

was practically purchased by him and therefore the contention of the AO that he executed the contract awarded by the land owners stands proved and as per Explanation inserted in section 80IB(10) vide Finance (No.2) Act 2009 with r.e.f. 1.4.2001 a person executing a works contract is not entitled for the deduction. The disallowance of 80IB(10) is therefore upheld. 13. Further for being entitled to deduction u/s. 80IB(10) the conditions stipulated from clause (a) to clause (d) of the section have .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Revised development permission dated 1.4.2004 which was submitted and also the revised plan approved by the local authority dated 1.4.2004 in which 117 residential units comprising tenements from Block A to L were approved for construction on plot of land with area of 15985 sq.mtrs., whereas in the original 114 residential units comprising tenements and row houses were approved on the same plot of land. The proofs given like one electricity bill of May 2005 of flat owner (one Shri K.R. Patel ) .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

opportunities given the appellant could not furnish the BU permission given by the local authority along with the approved completion plan of the construction completed in my view he has not complied with the condition pertaining to approvals of local authority as per clause (a) of section 80IB(10) and is therefore not entitled for the deduction. 13. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of ld. CIT(A), Assessee is now in appeal before us. 14. Before us, ld. A.R. reiterated the submissions made befor .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

foresaid issue is now settled in favour of assessee by the decision of Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Radhe Developers reported in (2012) 341 ITR 403 (Guj) & thereafter by series of decisions of Tribunal and therefore on this ground the claim of assessee for deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the Act cannot be denied. He further submitted that ld. CIT(A) had upheld the denial of deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the Act for the reason that BU permission of the local authority was not furnis .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

04 and therefore the condition imposed for completion of project would not be applicable to the project under taken by the eassessee as it was approved in 2003 which is also in line with the Explanation (i) to Section 80IB(10) of the Act and for this proposition, he also relied on the decision of Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of ITO vs. Saket Corp. (T. A. No. 107 of 2015). He also placed on record a copy of the same. He therefore submitted that assessee has rightly claimed deduction u/s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ly acted as a contractor. On the issue of denial of deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the Act for the aforesaid reasons, we find that by now the issue is well settled ,more so, by the decision of Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Radhe Developers (supra) and other cases. The Hon ble High Court in the case of CIT vs. Radhe Developers (supra) has observed that there is no requirement that the land must be owned by the assessee seeking the deduction and when assessee had total and complete .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

case of CIT vs. Radhe Developers (supra), we are of the view that assessee is eligible for deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the Act. As far as the denial on deduction by ld. CIT(A) on the ground that BU permission from local authorities were not obtained, it is an undisputed fact that the original permission for the development of the housing project was received on 28.03.2003 and subsequently the revised permission was received on 01.04.2004. Explanation (i) below Section 80IB(10) of the Act states t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

g the date of original approval date and at that time the statute did not mandate the requirement of obtaining BU permission from local authorities. We also find that in the case of ITO vs. Saket Corporation (supra), Revenue had preferred appeal before Hon ble High Court for the reason that the Hon ble ITAT had allowed the appeal of assessee by holding that when the housing project was approved on 10.03.2004 by the competent authority, condition for obtaining completion certificate within a peri .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

u/s.80IB(10) of the Act. Before us, Revenue has not placed any material on record to point out any distinguishing feature in the case of Saket Corpn. (supra) nor has pointed out as to how the ratio of the aforesaid decision rendered by Hon ble Gujarat High Court would not be applicable to the facts of present case nor has placed on record any contrary binding decision. In view of the aforesaid facts, we are of the view that assessee is eligible for deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the Act and thus allo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     Latest Happenings     ↓  

Forum: 3B mistake

Forum: Excise duty credit on finished stock at additional place of business.

Forum: Manpower Service provider

Article: 20 Things You must know about E Way Bills in GST Law

Article: ‘DUTY DRAWBACK’ CANNOT BE EQUATED WITH ‘REBATE OF DUTY’

Forum: GST on Notional rent

Highlight: Notification regarding GST rate for branded cereal, pulses and flour

News: Notification regarding GST rate for branded cereal, pulses and flour

Highlight: Anti-dumping duty on import of bus/truck tyres from China

Highlight: Cabinet approves Extension of time period of the Scheme "Special Industry Initiative for J&K" (Sll J&K) - Udaan

Highlight: Non-payment of service tax - maintenance and repair charges - appellants had knowingly and deliberately shown the repair charges as job work charges to mislead about their taxability - demand confirmed.

Highlight: BAS - execution of the project of smart card for vehicle registration – implementing the SOC-VRC project - The fact that the Government has outsourced some part of the work and paid certain consideration for such outsourced work, does not make the activity subject to service tax.

Forum: Input tax credit

Forum: Cess paid instead of SGST

Circular: Amendments in Hand Book of Procedures 2015-20 –reg.

News: Cabinet approves Extension of time period of the Scheme "Special Industry Initiative for J&K" (Sll J&K) - Udaan

Highlight: Constitution of National Anti-profiteering Authority (NAA) under GST-reg. - Trade Notice

Highlight: Amendments in Hand Book of Procedures 2015-20 –reg. - Various amendments are made in Chapter-4 of Hand Book of Procedures 2015-2020.

Forum: GST rates on mobile recharge business

Circular: Constitution of National Anti-profiteering Authority (NAA) under GST-reg.

Highlight: Sharing of expenses - BAS - promotion of business of group companies - sharing of expenditure for common facilities cannot be treated as service by one to another in such arrangement.

News: RBI Reference Rate for US $

Article: Credit of unsold stock [Section 140(3)] - Actual Credit as well as Notional Credit - Part-I - GST Transitional provisions

Circular: Certain Clarifications sought on Construction Services provided in the Real Estate Sector – reg.

News: Anti-dumping duty on import of bus/truck tyres from China

News: Fast-track GST refund, else ₹ 65K cr may be stuck: Exporters

Highlight: It is open to the Settlement Commission to use best judgment in arrival of the figure. Nonetheless it has to explain the manner in which the best judgment figure has been arrived at by the Settlement Commission - HC

Highlight: Deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) - advances given to societies - in the absence of legal right of the assessee in the said society the amount advanced cannot be treated as deemed income.

Highlight: When electrical installations are treated as plant and machinery the depreciation has to be allowed @ 25% as per provisions contained u/s 32

TMI Note: Capital Gain - transfer of right in the land or transfer of land itself - addition u/s 50C - Harassment to the honest tax payers

Highlight: Option to avail composition scheme under GST by electronically filing an intimation in FORM GST CMP-02 and FORM GST ITC-03 upto 30-9-2017 - See Rule 3(3A)

TMI Note: Does ICDS apply for the purposes of computing exemption u/s 11 to 13.

Highlight: Voluntary Reporting of Estimated Current Income and Advance Tax Liability - CBDT issues draft notification

TMI Note: Certain ICDS provisions are inconsistent with judicial precedents. Whether these judicial precedents would prevail over ICDS.

Highlight: Provisions of ICDS shall prevail w.e.f. AY 2017-18 to the transactional issues dealt therein over earlier judicial pronouncements.

Notification: Levy of anti dumping duty on New/unused pneumatic radial tyres with or without tubes and/or flap of rubber (including tubeless tyres) having normal rim dia code above 16 originating in, or exported from China PR

News: Voluntary Reporting of Estimated Current Income and Advance Tax Liability

TMI Note: In case of conflict between ICDS and other specific provisions of the Income-tax rules, 1962 governing taxation of income like rules 9A, 9B etc. of the Rules, which provisions shall prevail.

TMI Note: Does ICDS apply to computation of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) u/s 115JB of the Act or Alternate Minimum Tax (AMT) u/s 115JC of the Act.

TMI Note: Where a term has not been defined under ICDS, nor under the Act, but has different interpretations given to it by the courts in tax cases, and in ICAI Accounting Standards, which interpretation would prevail while interpreting ICDS.

TMI Note: Whether the provisions of ICDS apply to a non-resident who claims the benefit of a double taxation avoidance agreement (DTAA).

TMI Note: In case any of the ICDS provisions is contrary to a circular or press release issued by the CBDT, which would prevail over the other.

TMI Note: ICDS-I requires disclosure of significant accounting policies and other ICDS requires specific disclosures. Where is the taxpayer required to make such disclosures specified in ICDS.

Notification: Income Computation and Disclosure Standards (ICDS) - New ICDS to be effective from AY 2017-18

News: RBI Reference Rate for US $

Highlight: GST - Detention of goods under transport - discrepancy in documents - the statutory provisions provide a mechanism for adjudication following detention of goods including for the provisional release thereof pending adjudication - HC

Highlight: Reassessment - first few paragraphs of the assessment order dealt with objections and disposed of accordingly - Unfortunately, the manner in which the AO has decided the issue is wholly unsustainable in law - HC

Highlight: Business expenditure u/s 37 - liquidated damage - breach of contract terms - Expenditure was not incurred for any purpose which is an offence or which is prohibited by law - cannot be disallowed - HC

Highlight: Valuation - inclusion of reimbursement of expenses - managing participation of clients in certain mela, fairs, promotional activities etc. - They are liable to service tax on the gross amount received - They cannot restrict their tax liability to only agency commission

Highlight: TDS liability - ITAT confirmed the liability - We do not see how it is possible for us to uphold the order of the Tribunal and when it purports to decide two Appeals of the Revenue by single paragraph conclusion - HC



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version