9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 798X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in this appeal of the revenue is below the monetary limit of Rs. 50 lakhs as per circular No.17/2019 dated 08th August, 2019 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) for filing appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, appeal is not maintainable. To substantiate his contention that the tax effect of the amount disputed by the revenue is below Rs. 50 lakhs, learned Counsel drew our attention to the grounds raised by the revenue and the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as the order passed by the assessing officer while giving effect to the order of the learned first appellate authority. 3. The learned Departmental Representative has not opposed the aforesaid contention of the assessee. 4. Having heard rival submissions and perused materials on record and more particularly, the order dated 05-02-2018 passed by the assessing officer giving effect to the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), we find that the amount disputed by the revenue in this appeal is Rs. 1,08,24,657/-. Undisputedly, the tax effect on the aforesaid amount disputed by the revenue is much below the monetary limit of Rs. 50 lakhs prescribed by the CBDT in circu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bove, the Tribunal deleted the addition holding as under:- "2.5.5 Upon careful consideration, the undisputed position that emerges is that the assessee is following consistent method of accounting to recognize the revenue under these contracts. percentage of completion of the project has been worked out as per total cost incurred on the project to date vis-à-vis total budgeted cost and that fraction is applied to the contract value for the purpose of revenue recognition. Similar formulae have been adopted by the assessee in preceding two years which has been accepted by the revenue. No case of revenue leakage has been established before us. Nothing on record suggest that remaining income under the project has not been offered by the assessee in subsequent years, following the same method of accounting. Simply because progress billing was more than the stage of percentage of completion, the same, in itself, could not be the basis to usurp the consistent method of accounting being followed by the assessee. Therefore, the additions made by the revenue, under the circumstances, could not be sustained. We order so. Accordingly, ground Nos. 7 to 11 of assessee's appeal stand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tfully following the decisions of the Tribunal in assessee's own case, as referred to above, we delete the addition. These grounds are allowed. 18. Grounds 7 to 12 being not pressed, are dismissed. 19. In ground 13, the assessee has raised the issue of non grant of TDS credit of Rs. 19,16,963/-. 20. Having considered rival submissions, we direct the assessing officer to verify form 26AS and other materials on record and grant credit for TDS in accordance with law. This ground is allowed for statistical purpose. 21. Ground 14 being consequential in nature, does not require adjudication. 22. In addition to the main grounds, assessee has raised three additional grounds. The additional grounds raised by the assessee, since, do not require investigation into fresh facts, we are inclined to admit them for adjudication. 23. In grounds 1 & 2 of additional grounds, the assessee has raised the issue of deduction of education cess and higher and secondary education cess on income-tax amounting to Rs. 47,49,963/-. 24. Having considered rival submissions, we find that this issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in case of Sesa Goa Ltd vs JCIT (2020) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 08-09. In case, assessee's claim is accepted in assessment year 2008-09, this ground would become infructuous. Otherwise, if the Tribunal agrees with the departmental authorities that the expenditure is capital in nature, the assessee would be entitled to claim depreciation. Accordingly, this ground is restored back to the assessing officer for deciding afresh keeping in view the order of the Tribunal for assessment year 2008-09. This ground is allowed for statistical purposes. 30. In the result, appeal is partly allowed. ITA 7991/Mum/2019 - Assessee's appeal - Assessment Year 2015-16 31. Grounds 1, 2 & 3 are identical to grounds 1, 2 & 3 of ITA No.6163/Mum/2016 decided by us in the earlier part of the order. Facts being identical, our decision therein will apply mutatis mutandis to these grounds as well. Accordingly, grounds are allowed. 32. Grounds 4 to 7 are not pressed; hence, dismissed. 33. Ground 8 is identical to additional ground 3 of ITA No.6163/Mum/2016 decided by us earlier in this order. Following our decision therein, we restore the issue to the assessing officer for allowing assessee's claim of depreciation in case the expenditure incurred by the assessee is hel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
