9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 635X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the case, the CIT(A) was correct in holding that the valuation officer had included the cost of generator and transformer totaling to Rs. 7,00,000 under 'miscellaneous structures' whereas the assessee had accounted for the same under the head 'electrical equipment' and hence those items have already been accounted for in the amount of Rs. 8,18,390/-. 2. The ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 7,00,000 towards cost of transformer and generator though as seen from the details of electrical equipment as on 31/03/2002 recorded by the assessee, the cost of transformer was Rs. 1,15,000/- and cost of 7 generators was totaling to Rs. 8,18,390/- and cost of each generator is less than 5,00,000 from which it is evident that the cost of generator at Rs. 5,00,000 (1 unit) and cost of transformer at Rs. 2,00,000 (1 Unit) was not separately recorded by the assessee under the head 'electrical equipment." 3. After hearing both sides we find that the tax effect in the impugned appeal is less than Rs. 3 lakhs. The CBDT vide Instruction No. 3of 2011 dated 9.2.2011 has revised the monitory limit for filing the appeals by the Department before the ITAT, according to which the same has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). 8. Before the CIT(A), the assessee raised following grounds: "2. The Assessing Officer erred in rejecting the objection of the appellant that the estimated cost of construction as arrived at by the Valuation Officer as of 31/03/2004 cannot form the basis for rejecting the actual cost of construction of the club building as admitted by the appellant as of 31/03/2002 for the purposes of completing the assessment for assessment year 2002-03. 3. The Assessing Officer erred in applying estimated cost of construction as at 31/03/2004 arrived at by the Valuation Officer, to arrive at the differential between this and the actual cost of construction as at 31/03/2002 and adding the said differential to the total income u/s 69 of the Act. The Assessing Officer ignored the appellant's plea that the estimated cost of construction arrived at as on 31/03/2004 by the Valuation Officer should be compared with the actual cost of construction as per books of account as of 31/03/2004, and the latter being excess no adjustment is called for. 4. The Assessing Officer erred in rejecting the appellant's objection that the cost of index of 168 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rities below. Since the CIT(A) has not adjudicated upon the alternate submissions made by the assessee and also since the assessee has correctly raised the objection that in case of error in the valuation report it is for the valuation cell to rectify the error after giving due notice to the assessee instead of the Assessing Officer stating that it is a typographical error. We set aside the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to adjudicate upon the alternate ground and also call for a corrected report from the valuation cell. 12. The next ground of appeal i.e. Ground No. 3 raised by the assessee is as follows: "3. The CIT(A) while upholding the adoption of CPWD rates erred in not allowing discount for rate difference of 15% from the CPWD rates in terms of the decision of Hon. ITAT, Visakhapatnam Bench in the case of ITO-Ward-3, Vijayawada Vs. Sriranganayakamma vide ITA No. 597/V/98 rendred in December 2004." 13. We have heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the record as well as gone through the orders of the authorities b below. We find merit in the argument of the assessee that The CIT(A) while upholding the adoption of CPWD rates erred in not allowing di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the investing surplus funds is part of the business of the company. It was submitted that interest income earned on such deposits/advances were offered for taxation. The claim of the assessee was for the deduction of principle amount of Rs. 32,90,868/- written off in the books of the company. The assessee wrote off the investment of Rs. 50,000/- made in the said company. 20. The learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that the parties to whom such advances were granted have not been able to repay. Therefore, the assessee wrote off the advances as irrecoverable in its profit and loss account and claimed deduction for the same. It was submitted that deduction towards irrecoverable advances are claimed u/s 28/29 of the Act. It was further submitted that deduction from the taxable profits are to be allowed not only in respect of specific provisions as contained in sections 30 to 37, but also on general principles. It was contended that business loss is an allowable deduction from taxable profits on general principles. Stating that such loss has arisen from its business, the assessee contended that the same should be allowed deduction u/s 28/29 of the Act. For this propositi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Dr. Mrs. Renuka Datla Vs. CIT 240 ITR 463(AP), we reject the assessee's claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. We are of the opinion that the CIT(A) has rightly held that the facts of the case would not show that the assessee was independently engaged in developing and constructing housing project within the meaning of sub-section (10) of 80IB of the Act, hence, we confirm the order of the CIT(A) on this issue. 26. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. ITA NO. 290/H/07 - appeal of the assessee for AY 2003-04. 27. Ground No. 1 is general in nature. Ground No. 2 is directed against the action of the CIT(A) in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer in disallowing Rs. 77,00,000/- towards irrecoverable advances written off from the books of account. 28. The Assessing Officer noted that for allowing bad debts as revenue expenditure, the two preconditions are that i) the debt should on revenue account and ii) the same must have been taken into account in computing the profits of the business of the assessee for any earlier year, as per sub-section (2) of section 36 of the Act. After observing that the principle amount of Rs. 77,00,000/- was never offered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
