9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 584X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out to Rs. 9,89,425/-. Modification in granting 3% reduction towards direct purchase of materials as direct and bulk purchase of materials normally yield a reasonable discount in the procurement price. Therefore, relief of 3% granted by CIT(A) is justifiable. Modification granted by reduction of 15% from CPWD rates which have been adopted by the DVO is not unreasonable as comparing it to CPWD rates, State PWD rates are less. On the basis of this difference, reliefs have been granted to the assessees in a number of cases both by the Tribunal as well as by the High Courts. Therefore the reduction of 15% is only just and proper - contention of the assessee that CIT(A) has not considered the entire amount spent by the assessee on the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee have come in these appeals before us. 4. The grounds raised by the Revenue in its appeal read as below : 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in allowing further relief over and above the in toto relief allowed by CIT(A) in his order ITA No.160/2007-08 dated 10.7.2008. In the above order the entire addition of Rs. 69,89,535/- made by the Assessing Officer was fully deleted. Hence, there was no further scope of additional relief in this Miscellaneous Petition. 3. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that ld. CIT(A) s order in ITA No.160/-7-08 dt. 10.7.2008 has been set aside by the Honourable ITAT, Chennai bench and restored that of the Assessing Officer. Further, the appellant has filed petition under section 260A of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interests u/s 234A 234B on the following grounds . 1. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in determining the cost of construction of the Hotel building at Rs. 15835029 as against the cost of Rs.13300740 admitted as per the audited books of accounts. 2. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in basing his estimate on, and sustaining the estimate of the Valuation Officer when the Valuation Officer (VO) did not respond to his notices and justify the measurements and estimates made by him. 3. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not deleting the excess estimate of Rs. 1389563 by the VO on account of error in measurements after having taken of the admission by the VO himself in par 3.6.1 of his report that measurements were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, we find that the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) has not made any fundamental interference in the valuation made by the DVO and accepted by the assessing authority. 7. One of the modifications granted by the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) is in valuation of swimming pool and other structures. This modification has been granted not on any technical ground, but on an accounting ground. In fact the assessee had constructed the swimming pool and other structures in the subsequent year. This modification worked out to Rs. 9,89,425/-. Apart from this specific case of modification, the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) has granted 3% reduction towards direct purchase of materials. Direct and bulk purchase of materials normally yie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
