9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 40X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ged in the business of Real Estate. It filed its return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 on 29.09.2013 declaring total income of Rs. 13,67,710/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter, the assessment was framed u/s 143(3) vide order dated 31.12.2015 and the total income was determined at Rs. 59,67,459/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A), vide order dated 22.11.2017 in Appeal No.205 DCIT CC- 3(1)/CIT(A)-11 Hyd/15-16 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal before us and has raised the following grounds :- "1. The order of the Ld CIT(A) is erroneous both in law and on facts. 2. The Ld CIT(A) erred in dismissing the Appeal. 3. The Ld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ound No.1, 2 & 9 are general in nature and hence no separate adjudication is required. 5. He submitted that Ground No.3 to 4 are interconnected and are with respect to Land Development Expenses for Rs. 19,17,251/-. 6. During the course of assessment proceedings, AO noticed that assessee had debited Rs. 95,86,257/- towards "Land Development Expenses". The assessee was asked to furnish the Ledger accounts and evidence in support of the claim. AO noted that assessee only produced the ledger extract of the expenditure but did not produce any evidence to support the claim. In the absence of any supporting, AO proceeded to disallow 20% of the Land Development Expenses which worked out to Rs. 19,17,251/- and made its addition. Aggrieved by the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resaid facts, we are of the view that the disallowance made by the AO at 20% is at a higher side. We are of the view that the interest of justice shall be met if the disallowance is restricted to 10% of the expenses. We, thus direct accordingly. Thus, the ground of appeal is partly allowed. 9. Ground No. 5 to 8 are with respect to disallowing the deduction claim u/s 80G. 10. During the course of assessment proceedings, AO noticed that assessee had claimed deduction of Rs. 26,82,500/- u/s 80G of the Act (being 50% of the actual donation of Rs. 53,65,000/-). The assessee was asked to furnish the evidence and produce receipts for the claim of deduction. AO noted that the perusal of Ledger account revealed that most of the entries were jour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the approval granted to the trust to whom the donations have been given by the Assessee has been withdrawn. He further placed reliance on the decision of Delhi ITAT in the case of Mahila Mangal Charitable Trust vs. DIT(E) [ITA No.4166/Del/2011 dated 31.03.2012], decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bhola Bhandari Charitable Trust (2013) 351 ITR 469 (P & H) for the proposition that once statute gives perpetuity to exemptions granted u/s 80G(5), same could not be withdrawn without issuing show-cause notice to the Trust. He therefore, submitted that assessee be granted an opportunity to produce the receipts before the AO so as to prove about the genuineness of the donation. He, further submitted that the assessee u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
