9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 522X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itted that some expenditure was incurred by it for business purposes - the estimate of AO has been challenged by the assessee - the AO and the FAA have accepted that 50% expenditure under the head labour charges was justified - the assessee is following project complete method of accounting - on completion of the project, all the expenses have to be accounted for - the expenses are restricted to 12. 5 lakhs – Decided partly in favour of Assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he A. O. The Appellant craves, leave to add, amend or alter the Grounds of Appeal at the time of hearing. 2. Assesse company engaged in the business of building construction filed its return of income on 16. 10. 2006 declaring total loss of Rs. 7, 29, 395/-. The AO completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act on 30. 12. 2008 by disallowing Rs. 70, 24, 516/- as the sale price discrepancies visà- vis stamp duty values of the flats sold. He made further addition of Rs. 14, 82, 600/- as the proceeds of 10 car parking spaces and labour charges of Rs. 51, 75, 224/-. Assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority(FAA), who upheld all the three additions. The assessee company went in further appeal before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he project was completed only in 2006-07, expenses incurred earlier were work-in-progress and have to be allowed as deduction in the year of completion. Therefore, merely because the expenses were debited in the current year was no ground for not allowing the expenses. It was submitted that the amount given to Mr. Baghel has been treated as advance in the earlier year which was clear from the accounts for the year ending 31. 03. 2005 placed at page 138 of the paper book which showed advance of Rs. 50, 59, 092/-against the name of Mr. Baghel. It is therefore, urged that the claim for payment to the Contractor should be allowed. " 3. In the appellate proceedings, after considering the submissions of the assessee and the assessment order, FAA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e could be estimated after obtaining the details of nature and the quantum of work done by the contractor in completion of the project. Finally, he held that the AO had taken a reasonable view of restricting the expenditure to 50% of Rs. 51, 75, 224/- and calculated it at Rs. 25, 87, 612/-, 4. Before us, Authorised Representative(AR) submitted that the assessee was following project complete method, that AO had not pointed out any discrepancy in the books of accounts, that books were not rejected by the AO, that he had not given any basis for estimating the expenditure, that HB had worked with the assessee in the year 2006-07, that addition made by the AO confirmed by the FAA was on higher side. Departmental Representative (DR) argued that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
