2017 (4) TMI 656 - AT - Income Tax

Estimation of net profit from business - Held that - Respectfully following the decision of coordinate bench in assessee s own case for the assessment year 2009-10, we direct the A.O. to estimate net profit of 8% on main contract works, 5% on sub contract works and 1% on sub contract works given to third parties. Deductions towards depreciation, remuneration to partners and interest on partner s capital accounts - Held that - We are of the view that depreciation, interest on capital and remuneration to partners is deductible even after estimation of net profit from the contract receipts. Therefore, we direct the A.O. to allow depreciation, interest on partner s capital account and remuneration to partners against income estimated from contract receipts. Additions towards income from other sources being interest earned on fixed deposits - Held that - Interest earned from fixed deposits kept in banks for the purpose of obtaining bank guarantee is assessable under the head income from other sources , but not under the head income from business . The CIT(A) after considering the relevant provisions has rightly upheld the action of the A.O. treating interest income under the head income from other sources .

Issues Involved:
1. Estimation of net profit from business.
2. Deductions towards depreciation, remuneration to partners, and interest on partners' capital accounts.
3. Additions towards income from other sources being interest earned on fixed deposits.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Estimation of Net Profit from Business:
The primary issue revolved around the estimation of net profit from the business. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) rejected the books of accounts of the assessee, a partnership firm engaged in civil construction, and estimated net profit by adopting different percentages for main contract receipts (10%), sub-contract receipts (6%), and sub-contract works given to third parties (4%). The CIT(A) scaled down these estimations to 7%, 5%, and 1%, respectively, and allowed further deductions towards interest and remuneration to partners but rejected the claim of deduction towards depreciation. The Tribunal, following the decision in the assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2009-10, directed the A.O. to estimate net profit at 8% on main contract works, 5% on sub-contract works, and 1% on sub-contract works given to third parties.

2. Deductions Towards Depreciation, Remuneration to Partners, and Interest on Partners' Capital Accounts:
The A.O. had estimated net profit from the business net of all deductions, including depreciation, interest on partners' capital accounts, and remuneration to partners. The CIT(A) allowed deductions towards remuneration to partners and interest on partners' capital accounts under section 40(b) of the Act but denied deductions towards depreciation based on the Hon’ble A.P. High Court judgment in Indwell Constructions Vs. CIT 232 ITR 776. The Tribunal, following its earlier decision, held that depreciation, interest on partners' capital accounts, and remuneration to partners are allowable deductions even after the estimation of net profit from contract receipts.

3. Additions Towards Income from Other Sources Being Interest Earned on Fixed Deposits:
The A.O. made separate additions towards interest income earned from fixed deposits under the head "income from other sources." The CIT(A) deleted these additions, holding that the interest accrued on fixed deposits kept for obtaining bank guarantees should be considered part of business receipts. However, the Tribunal, following its earlier decision, upheld the A.O.'s view that the interest earned from fixed deposits, even if kept for obtaining bank guarantees, should be assessed under the head "income from other sources" and not as business income.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal directed the A.O. to compute the total income for the assessment year under consideration in accordance with the decisions rendered on various issues. The income so computed should not be less than the income returned by the assessee. Consequently, the appeals filed by both the assessee and the revenue were partly allowed.

← Previous Next →