9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 577X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder section 40A(9) at Rs.8,74,273/-. 2. The Assessing Officer made certain adjustments relating to number of Hydel Power Units, the unit price for each Hydel Unit was also taken into adjustment and had also allocated an expenditure of Rs.10 lakhs to power generation units. This resulted in a deduction allowable under section 80IA at Rs.2,63,15,259/- as against Rs.3,55,25,692/- claimed by the assessee. Against the Order under section 143 (3) the assessee filed rectification petition before the Assessing Officer after taking into consideration the submission of the assessee the Assessing Officer revised the number of Hydel units and accepted the contention of the assessee. However, the Assessing Officer did not interfere with the unit rate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the appellate proceedings stated that the disallowance is arbitrary and on higher side. The appellant has simply stated that the A.O has allocated Rs.10 lakhs from common expenditure to the 80-IA unit without attributing any reasons and this contention is not correct because the A.O has listed out from the common expenditure viz., vehicles, printing & stationery, administrative expenses, finance charges, audit fee, insurance, staff recruitment expenses, advertisement expenses etc., and found that the allocation between 80-IA unit and non 80-IA unit is not properly done. When the assessee contends that they followed certain parameters in the allocation, it has not substantiated as to what those parameters were and how the allocation has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... over and above the expenses of Rs.1,11,59,081/-already allotted by the assessee under various Heads. The Assessing Officer, thus, reduced the deduction claimed under section 80IA by the said amount of Rs. 10 lakhs. The Counsel submitted that the adhoc disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is not justified. In appeal, the CIT (A) has also confirmed the same stating that the assessee has not substantiated the parameters on the basis of which allocation was done. Learned Counsel relied on the decisions of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dalmia Cements 121 Taxmann 706 (Del.) and the decision of Delhi Bench of the I.T.A.T. in the case of DCIT vs. Sophisticated Marble and Granite Industries (3) ITR (Trib.) 220 (Del.). 7. We have hea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
