9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 1225X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #39;] of the deduction claimed under Section 80-IA of the Act amounting to Rs. 2,75,52,02,630 in respect of the contracts entered with non- government entities without appreciating the fact that the said contract is originally awarded by the government to these parties. 2. The Hon'ble CIT(A)-53 has erred in partly upholding the disallowance made by the Ld. AO of the deduction claimed under Section 80-1A of the Act amounting to Rs. 2,83,68,967 in respect of the contracts awarded by Government or local or statutory authorities for developing and/or operating and/or maintaining a new infrastructure facility. 3. The Hon'ble CIT(A)-53 has erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in disallowing Rs. 1,97,740 under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of delay in depositing contribution received from employees to the employee's contribution fund after the due date under respective Act but before due date of filing return of income. 4. The Hon'ble CIT(A)-53 has erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in not restricting the levy of the dividend distributed tax on the dividend distributed/paid to the Appellant's holding company to 15% in terms of Article ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allowance under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act of Rs.1,97,740/- was made as employees' contribution was paid beyond due dates prescribed by respective acts 07. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the appeal was filed before the learned CIT (A), who passed an order on 2nd March, 2023, i. Regarding disallowance under Section 14A of the Act of Rs.57,490/- in the normal computation of income as well as in the book profit, was deleted. ii. With respect to the deduction under Section 80IA of the Act, the learned CIT (A) noted that he asked the assessee to submit the facts of the claim completely with respect to the scope of work, work done and whether the assessee is merely a sub-contractor or developer. The assessee did not furnish the complete details before the learned Assessing Officer on examination of certain documents; he found that assessee is not a developer but a contractor. He also noted that the assessee has got the contract from private company who in turn were awarded contract by the Government and as the assessee has not a developer in accordance with the contracts government authorities, he agreed with the learned Assessing Officer and confirmed the disallowance. He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Structural Engineers Pvt. Ltd. 29,23,298 Total 2,67,10,44,317 2. The CIT(A) has erred in partly upholding the disallowance made by the AO of the deduction claimed under Section 80-IA of the Act amounting to Rs. 2,83,68,967 in respect of the contracts awarded by following Government or local or statutory authorities for developing and / or operating and / or maintaining a new infrastructure facility. Sr. No. Project No. Name of the client Amount (Rs.) 1. 35314AX Kolkata North Division 1,11,37,820 2. 41616AX Ircon International Ltd 59,04,074 3. 41916BS Agartala Municipal Corporation Sardar Agartala 82,08,585 4. 41516BA Airport Director, Airport Authority of India 31,18,488 " 09. On this ground, assessee also made a prayer for admission of the additional evidence under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules. In the application, assessee submitted that assessee has claimed deduction of Rs.28,982/- lacs in respect of 16 projects on account of contracts entered with Government and non-Government parties. The learned Assessing Officer has disallowed the entire deduction claimed. The learned CIT (A) has deleted the disallowance to the extent of Rs.11,47,19,1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IT (A), despite adequate opportunities provided ii. These additional evidences are not relevant at all to decide the issue as assessee is merely a subcontractor iii. This is not the reason for which deduction u/s 80 IA is denied. iv. Assessee is merely a works contractor and has not entered any contract with government, which are placed in additional evidences, which is main condition of 80 IA. 012. We have carefully considered the contentions mentioned in application under Rule 29 of ITAT Rules, 1963. It is apparent that in paragraph no.7.3, the learned CIT (A) specifically asked the assessee to produce the contract copies to ascertain whether the claim of the assessee falls within the parameter laid down under Section 80IA of the Act or not. Undoubtedly, assessee failed to produce the same before the lower authorities. Before us, it is submitted that assessee has submitted the scope of the work of the various contracts but could not submit the contract copies. It is stated that a survey took place on 26th October, 2021 and the case of the assessee were reopened for various assessment years and further transfer pricing proceedings of 7 years were going on. It is also the cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... being non-production of the contracts. The learned CIT (A) may examine additional evidences, look at their relevance in claim of deduction of the assessee and decide the issue whether the assessee fulfils conditions under Section 80IA (4) of the Act or not. Accordingly, the ground no.1 and 2 to the extent indicated above are allowed. 016. Ground no.3 is with respect to the disallowance of Rs.1,97,740/- under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of delay in depositing employee's contribution beyond the due dates prescribed under the respective Act. This ground is already decided by the learned CIT (A) against the assessee relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In absence of any argument by the learned Authorized Representative, same is dismissed. 017. Ground no.4 is with respect to the dividend distribution tax paid by the company at the rate of 20.36% under Section 115O of the Act, claim assessee that it should have been levied at the rate of 15% in terms of Article 10 of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Thailand. As The learned Authorized Representative fairly admitted that this issue is decided against the assessee by the Special Bench ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
