9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 341X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pendent on and consequential to the estimation of profit of the assessee from the activity of works contract in as much as the balancing figure, after estimating the profit of the assessee from the activity of execution of works contract, was going to be the profit of the manufacturing division which is eligible for deduction u/s 80IB. CIT(A) rightly after estimating the profit of the assessee from the activity of execution of works contract as per the directions of the Tribunal, proceeded to direct the AO to allow deduction to the assessee u/s 80IB in respect of the balancing figure, which represented the profit of the manufacturing division of the assessee - CIT(A) has not gone beyond the scope of the set aside proceedings, while direc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 30.11.2006. In the said return, a combined profit of ₹ 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 ₹ 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 inclusive of interest on bank deposits amounting to ₹ 10,76,660, which was not eligible for deduction under S.80IB. He also held that the assessee was further not entitled to deduction under S.80IB on the profits from the business of exec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 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 ₹ 71,93,893 made by the Assessing Officer to ₹ 60,80,729. Accordingly, the profit from the activity of manufacture of HDPE pipes was worked out by the learned CIT(A) at ₹ 19,18,281 (Rs.90,75,670- ₹ 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 S.80IB in respect of the said profit. Still aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 7. During the course of appellate proceedings before the Tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 deduction under S.80IB. We are unable to accept this contention of the learned Departmental Representative. It is observed that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture of HDPE pipes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd 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 the issue relating to the determination of the profit from the manufacturing division eligible for deduction under S.80IB was dependent on and consequential to the estimation of profit of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the Assessing Officer that the tax deducted at source by the assessee from the payments made to the contractors amounting to ₹ 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 ₹ 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 Bench(Visakhapatnam) of the Tribunal in the case of Merylin Shipping and Transports V/s. ACIT (2012)(20 Taxmann.com.244) Accordingly, the issue was examined by the learned CI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
