TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 511X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the observation of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue does have footing. DR s contention that the activities for which claim u/s 80IA (4) was claimed does not come under the purview of infrastructure project specifically Clause (b) is also correct proposition. Although the assessee has given the details relating to infrastructure projects, these are included in the definition of infrastructure project u/s 80IA of the Act, amended position which come into effect from 01/04/2015. The A.O has not applied the proper interpretation of Section 80IA(4) in consonance with evidence. Thus, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has rightly invoked Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee craves leave to add, amend, alter or forgo any or all of the grounds as may be necessary and in the interest of justice. 3. That the order of Pr. CIT is not justified on facts and same is bad in law. I.T.A. No. 2674DEL/2016 (A.Y 2012-13) 1(i) That on facts and circumstances of the case Pr. CIT was not justified in holding assessment order passed u/s 143(3) as erroneous and prejudicial the interest of revenue. (ii) That statutory claim u/s 80IA(4) was allowed in the original assessment after consideration of facts and legal provisions and as such there is no case for assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961. (iii) That Pr. CIT has admitted that there is no charge of lack of enquiry or applicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anager (Taxation) and AR of the assessee attended the proceedings and furnished copy of profit and loss account, balance sheet and tax audit report. The assessee claimed deduction u/s 80IA(4) to the extent of ₹ 111.47 crore as per certificate of Chartered Accountant and submitted that under Delhi State Industrial Operation and Maintenance Act, 2010, the assessee is operating and managing 29 Industrial Sheds and 4 flatted factory complex which are in the nature of infrastructural projects in terms of provisions of Section 80IA(4). The Assessing Officer vide assessment order dated 31/1/2014 accepted the claim of the assessee. 4. The show cause notice u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, was issued on 29/2/2016 by the Principal Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .) 2. CIT v. Ashish Rajpal [2009] 320ITR 674 (Delhi) (HC) 3. CIT v. Vikas Polymers [2010] 194 Taxmann 57 (Delhi) (HC) 4. Salora International Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [2005] 2 SOT 705 (Delhi) (Trib.) 5. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC) 6. CIT v. Sohana Woollen Mills [2008] 296 ITR 238 (P H) (HC) 7. CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) (HC) 8. CIT v. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. 333 ITR 547 (Delhi) (HC) 9. Surinder Kumar Jain v. ITO, (Delhi Trib.), I.T.A. No. 2481 / DEL /2014 7. The Ld. DR submitted that the Assessing Officer has not taken cognizance of the actual definition of infrastructure project as per Section 80IA (4) and without looking into the fulfillment of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of assessment u/s 143 (3) relating to claim of 80IA(4). However, the Assessing Officer has not given any cogent finding. Thus, the observation of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue does have footing. The Ld. DR s contention that the activities for which claim u/s 80IA (4) was claimed does not come under the purview of infrastructure project specifically Clause (b) is also correct proposition. Although the assessee has given the details relating to infrastructure projects, these are included in the definition of infrastructure project u/s 80IA of the Act, amended position which come into effect from 01/04/2015. The A.O has not applied the proper in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... applicability of Section 80IA(4) in respect of the assessee s claim which amounts to erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The present case is covered by the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in case of Deniel Merchants Private Limited Anr. Vs. Income Tax Officer (Appeal No. 2396/2017 order dated 29.11.2017). The Hon ble Supreme Court held as under: In all these cases, we find that the Commissioner of Income Tax had passed an order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with the observations that the Assessing Officer did not make any proper inquiry while making the assessment and accepting the explanation of the assessee(s) insofar as receipt of share application money is concerned. On that basis the Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
