TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 138X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... HELD THAT:- We note that the AO dealt the issues regarding the claim of deduction u/s. 80IA(4)(b) of the and disallowance under the alleged bogus purchases separately in his order. It is also true that the alternative claim made before the CIT(A) stating since the assessee is entitled for claiming deduction u/s. 80IA(4)(b) and the alleged disallowance under bogus purchases does not survive as it would be added to the total income of the assessee. Hon ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Gems Plus Jewellery Ltd.. [ 2010 (6) TMI 65 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] the which held the alleged bogus purchases would be added to the infrastructural profit of the assessee which is exempt u/s. 80IA(4)(b) read with clause (c) of the explanation to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A of the Act remains unadjudicated. 3. The ld. AR, Smt. Deepa Khare submits that in the main appeal in ITA No. 13/PUN/2016, the assessee raised additional ground, which is, Assuming for the sake of argument but without admitting the alleged bogus purchases would be added back to the infrastructural profit of the assessee which is exempt u/s. 80IA(4)(b) read with clause (c) of the explanation to sec. 80IA of the Act, as held by the Bombay High Court in the case CIT v/s Gems Plus Jewellery Ltd., 233 CTR 248. 4. She submits that this Tribunal vide Para No. 4 of the order referred to additional ground and also the contention of the assessee that the AO made addition on account of bogus purchases amounting to ₹ 2,29,96,335/- though ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 28-01-2020 passed in main appeal. 7. The ld. DR, Shri Mahadevan A.M. Krishnan relied on the order of Tribunal. 8. Having heard both the parties, we note that the main contention of ld. AR is that the assessee is eligible to claim deduction u/s. 80IA(4)(b) of the Act and there should not be a separate disallowance under the head alleged bogus purchases. We note that the AO dealt the issues regarding the claim of deduction u/s. 80IA(4)(b) of the and disallowance under the alleged bogus purchases separately in his order. It is also true that the alternative claim made before the CIT(A) stating since the assessee is entitled for claiming deduction u/s. 80IA(4)(b) and the alleged disallowance under bogus purchases does not survive as it wo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
