9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1214X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 61 ('Act') is against an order dated 27th April 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('ITAT') in ITA No. 2105/Del/2013 pertaining to Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The main ground urged by the Revenue in relation to the impugned order of the ITAT is that the ITAT erred in deleting the following additions ordered by the Assessing Officer ('AO'): (a) Rs. 1,09,92,26 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ;FY') i.e. 2008-09 as those bills were not approved due to some pending defect liability period work. It was claimed by the Assessee that it had not received the full and final payment of the bills raised on UIL in FY 2007-08. It received payment in the following FY and "very much accounted those bills in FY 2008-09 for which we are enclosing our ledger account statement for your kind consider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e first time before the CIT (A). The AO in the remand report stated: "it is not denied that the bills of difference value of Rs. 1,09,92,260 has not been accounted for in the books of accounts. It is in fact clear that a bill of Rs. 1,08,92,867 has been accounted for by the Assessee company on 2nd May 2008 whereas the date on the bill (copy enclosed by it) is 24th March 2008. There is no reference ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot been offered for tax by the Assessee even in the subsequent FY 2008-09, the learned counsel for the Revenue stated that the stand of the Revenue was only that in P&L Account for the AY in question i.e. 2007-08 the entire amount was not offered to tax. 9. With the ITAT having returned a definite finding about the Assessee following the percentage completion method and with the Revenue not conte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not persuaded to frame any question. 11. As regards the disallowance of the service tax, the ITAT has noted that the service tax payable was not in fact shown as a deduction in the P&L account. Although a statement was made before the AO that the service tax was paid late, the fact remains that for the AY in question the Assessee had not claimed it as a deduction in the P&L Account. Consequent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
