9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 341X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee for deduction under S.80IB. 4. The assessee in the present case is a company which is engaged in the business of manufacture of HDPE pipes and execution of works contract. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by it on 30.11.2006. In the said return, a combined profit of Rs. 90,75,670 was claimed by the assessee from the business of manufacture of HDPE pipes as well as execution of works contract and deduction thereon at the rate of 30%, amounting to Rs. 27,22,701 was claimed under S.80IB of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, the claim of the assessee for deduction under S.80IB was examined by the Assessing Officer and on such examination, he found that profit shown by the assessee was incl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earned CIT(A) upheld the decision of the Assessing Officer that the assessee was not entitled for deduction under S.80IB in respect of profits from the activity of execution of works contract and interest income received on bank deposits. 6. As regards the estimation of the profit of the assessee form the activity of works contract, the learned CIT(A) allowed part relief to the assessee by reducing the estimate of Rs. 71,93,893 made by the Assessing Officer to Rs. 60,80,729. Accordingly, the profit from the activity of manufacture of HDPE pipes was worked out by the learned CIT(A) at Rs. 19,18,281 (Rs.90,75,670- Rs. 60,80,729-Rs.10,76,660), and the Assessing Officer was directed by him to allow the claim of the assessee for deduction under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the estimation of the profit of the assessee from the activity of execution of works contract was restored by the Tribunal to the file of the learned CIT(A), and since the issue relation to the claim for deduction under S.80IB was not pressed by the assessee before the Tribunal, the learned CIT(A) is not justified in directing the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of the assessee for deduction under S.80IB. According to him, this direction given by the learned CIT(A) in the set aside proceedings is beyond the scope of the said proceedings, which is confined by the direction of the Tribunal, and the learned CIT(A) has thus transgressed his limit, while directing the Assessing Officer to allow part of the claim of the assessee for deducti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e for deduction under S.80IB in respect of profit from the activity of works contract, a similar issue was already decided by the Tribunal against the assessee in assessment year 2005-06 and accordingly, the same was not pressed by the assessee during the course of appellate proceedings for the year under consideration before the Tribunal. The issue that survived for the consideration of the Tribunal in this context was thus only in relation to the quantification of the profit of the assessee from the activity of execution of works contract and the same was restored by the Tribunal to the file of the CIT(A) vide its order dated 19.7.2012, passed in ITA No.1650/Hyd/2010 for deciding the same afresh. It is however, pertinent to note here that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the addition of Rs. 2,71,90,481 made by the Assessing Officer by invoking the provisions of S.40(a)(ia) of the Act. 12. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed by the Assessing Officer that the tax deducted at source by the assessee from the payments made to the contractors amounting to Rs. 2,71,90,481 was belatedly paid by the assessee in the month of October, 2005. He therefore, invoked the provisions of S.40(a)(ia) and made a disallowance of Rs. 2,71,90,481. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) confirmed the said disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. On further appeal, the Tribunal restored this issue to the file of the learned CIT(A) with a direction to examine the same in the light of the decision of the Special Be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in the case of CIT V/s. PEC Electricals Pvt. Ltd. (ITTA No.263 of 2013) vide order dated 12.7.2013, has concurred with the view of the Hon'ble Kolkata High Court in the case of Virgin Creations (supra). Thus, the issue involved in ground No.4 of the Revenue's appeal is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of PEC Electricals (supra) and respectfully following the said decision of the jurisdictional High Court, we uphold the impugned order of the learned CIT(A), deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under S.40(a)(ia). Ground No.4 of the Revenue's appeal is accordingly dismissed. 14. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
