9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 1017X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITAT AHMEDABAD ] - Decided against revenue. Addition u/s. 40(a)(ia) - disallowance of payment to contractors - TDS not deposited within the time prescribed - CIT(A) deleted disallowance - Held that:- The provision of Section 40(a)(ia) has wrongly been invoked in the case of the assessee, therefore, the disallowance of expenditure was wrongly made as the amended provisions of section 40(a)(ia) are to be due date of filing of the return and thus no disallowance should be made. We hereby affirm the view taken by learned CIT(A). This ground of the Revenue is hereby dismissed. - Decided against revenue. - ITA 2191/AHD-2012 - - - Dated:- 14-6-2013 - SHRI MUKUL Kr. SHRAWAT, AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, JJ. Revenue by: Shri Sumit Kumar, Sr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the respective assssees had dominant control over the projects and developed the land at their own risk and costs and therefore, were eligible for deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. In the case of M/s. Sun Developers, a similar claim has been allowed by the ITAT in the AY 2005-06 while in the case of M/s Shreeji Developers, the AO himself allowed the claim in the order passed in consequence of direction of the ITAT in the AY 2004-05. the revenue have not placed before us any material controverting the findings of the ld. CIT(A0 in these cases nor brought to our notice any contrary decision. In these circumstances, especially when the ld. CIT(A) merely followed the decisions of the ITAT in the case of M/s Shakti Corportation (supra) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he tribunal had given a clear cut finding while deciding assessee s appeal for A.Y: 2007-08 (supra) that the dominant control over the project belonged to the assessee and the project was developed at the risk and the cost of the assessee. It has also been noted by the Hon ble Co-ordinate Bench that there was no contrary material placed on record from the side of the Revenue, therefore, there was no reason to take any other different view. As far as the question of sale of excess FSI was concerned the issue was held as covered by Radhe Developers 133 TTJ 300 (Ahd). Further in the case of ITO Vs. M/s. Paritosh Infrastructure in ITA No.697/Ahd/2010 for A.Y:2006-07, dated 20th July, 2012, it was held that the concept of element of unutilized F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ferent dates, i.e., on 8th of April and 24th of November, 2008. However, the TDS deducted was paid on 2nd of April, 2009. As per the AO, the TDS was not deposited within the time prescribed, therefore, the expenditure was disallowed. When the matter was carried before the appellate authority, learned CIT(A) has held that the issue is now covered in favour of the assessee by following a decision of Hon ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Virgin Creations (Civil No. ITA 302 of 2011/GA/3200/2011 order dated 23.11.2011. 4. Having heard the submission of both the sides, we have noted that the ITAT Ahmedabad is consistently following the decision of the Hon ble Calcutta High. In one of the case of Hon ble ITAT C Bench, Ahmedabad in the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
