9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 540X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll the overseas projects. In such circumstances, the Tribunal was in no error in directing the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction as claimed by the assessee without setting off all the losses suffered in other foreign projects - Decided in the favour of the assessee. Entitlement to deduction for Retention Money - Held that:- Question (B) stands concluded in favour of the respondent-assessee and against the appellant-revenue by the decision of this Court in CIT Vs. Associated Cables P. Ltd. [2006 (8) TMI 135 - BOMBAY High Court] wherein held the payment of retention money in the case of contract is deferred and is contingent on satisfactory completion of contract work. The right to receive the retention money is accrued only after t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n view the cap of gross total income of ₹ 3.16 Crores returned by the appellant. For the aforesaid purpose, the appellant has placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Canara Workshops Pvt. Ltd. reported in 161 ITR 320. However the Assessing Officer clubbed income/losses of all foreign projects and restricted the benefit of deduction available under Section 80HHB of the Act. Consequently, restricting the benefits of deduction under Section 80HHB of the Act to ₹ 90.80 Lakhs as against ₹ 1 Crore claimed by the respondent. 4. In appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (the 'CIT(A)') by an order dated 29 September 1987 allowed the appellant's appeal by holding that when each proj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cision of this Court in CIT Vs. Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. reported in 368 ITR 733. In the above case, the following questions had been referred to this Court for its opinion: (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction under Section 80HHB in respect of each project instead of netting up of profits from all the overseas projects and thus directing the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction as claimed by the assessee without setting off the loss suffered in other foreign projects? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Revenue. The reference is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. 8. It is not disputed by the revenue that the issue stands concluded by the decision in Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. (supra). Accordingly, Question (A) is answered in the affirmative i.e. in the favour of the respondentassessee and against the appellant-revenue. Re. Question (b): 9. It is agreed by the Counsel that Question (B) stands concluded in favour of the respondent-assessee and against the appellant-revenue by the decision of this Court in CIT Vs. Associated Cables P. Ltd. reported in 286 ITR 596. Accordingly, Question (B) is answered affirmative i.e. in favour of the respondentassessee and against the appellant-revenue. 10. In view of the above, appeal is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
