9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 2006X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted and sold commercial premises during the year under consideration." 2. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was correct in not appreciating the fact that the assessee shows in the Balance Sheet, the construction expenditure incurred as the Capital Work in Progress." 3. "on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee cannot escape its liability from offering its profits for taxation just because it has recorded its business activity in its books of account under different nomenclature." 4. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se was selected for scrutiny and after serving statutory notices and seeking reply of the assessee, assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was passed by the AO thereby making additions on account of income from sale of LodhaSupremus building and in this way the total income of the assessee was computed. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. CIT(A) after considering the case of both the parties,partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Now before us, the revenue has preferred the present appeal by raising the above grounds. Ground No. 1 to 6 3. These grounds raised by the revenuerelates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A)in directing the Assessing Officer to delete the add ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at liability side, the Appellant has shown "Contribution from Shareholder" (notes 3) at Rs. 57,82,28,767/- and at assets side the same amount is shown as "Capital Work-in-Progress" (note 7), which means that the work in progress has been carried out through the funds of the shareholders (i.e. SNCML) (iii) It was also seen from note 6 of the balance sheet that the Appellant has shown an amount 32,59,97,012/- as "Other Current Liabilities" and at the assets side at 13 under the head "Other Current Assets" the assessee has shown the amount of Rs. 32,81,92,677/- as "Contribution receivable from Shareholder", which mean that the liabilities of the Appellant are met by the funds received from the shareholders (i.e. SNCML) (iv) It was observed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The facts categorically stated by the ITSC is that the applicants is not in receipts of car parking money in case of commercial projects is recorded at paragraph 13.3 and 13.1 of ITSC's order. Since, LodhaSupremus is a commercial project, no car parking has been offered on this project. (viii) While dealing with the issue of On money in paragraph 14 of the ITSC's order, the Hon'ble ITSC, at sub-para 14 3, has stated the facts explained by the applicants that it has not charged any on money in respect of the commercial projects However, an amount ofRs. 1 Crore has been charged as on-money in respect of one of their commercial project Lodha. (ix) At paragraph 17.5 on page 37 and 38 of the ITSC's order, they have determine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 37,04,50,881/- Less: Reduction in Brought forward losses 15,98,17,321/- Taxable income 53,02,68,202/- Tax on total income 17,20,45,518/- Interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C 2,45,15,795/- Tax liability after interest 19,65,61,314/- Less: Prepaid taxes 16,05,02,088/- Tax liability 3,60,59,226/- 3.11.4. In view of the above facts in the present case, it is clear that the assessment year 2012-13 in the case of SNCML was covered in the proceeding before the ITSC. The ITSC has already taxed the revenue from the project "LodhaSupremus" in the hand of SNCML as evident from the discussion in above paragraph. Thus, I am of the considered view that taxing the same income again in the hand of the Appellant will result into double taxation o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stated paragraph, the Appellant Company has not done any activity except construction on behalf of its shareholders. As held above, the Appellant has acted merely as a SPV for the construction of "LodhaSupremus" out of funds provided by the shareholders. It has not recorded any revenue in its audited financial statement as all the revenue pertaining to work carried out by the Appellant are recorded in the books of shareholders which is already taxed in the case of the SNCML by the ITSC; thus, under the circumstances, the Appellant is not allowed to claim the expenses in absence of any revenue offered by it. Therefore, the Appellants claim of losses for Rs. 1,52,974/- is disallowed. After having gone through the orders passed by revenue a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
