9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 360X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act, for quantification of such claim, we remand the issue back to the file of the AO. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purpose. Disallowance of 30% of labour charges - Held that:- Disallowance of 30% of labour charges was made for a reason that selfmade vouchers did not carry the addresses of the payees. May be it is true that only self-made vouchers can be maintained in support of labour expenditure. However nothing can stop the assessee from giving full address of the recipients. Having failed to do we cannot say that assessee had discharged its onus for supporting its claim. We are of the opinion that lower authorities were justified in making a disallowance of 30% - Decided against assessee. Disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) - CIT(A) deleted the disaaalowance considering that Finance Act, 2010, amendment toSection 40(a)(ia) of the Act, through Finance Act, 2010 had to be construed retrospectively - Held that:- There is no dispute that tax was deducted by the assessee and remitted by it before the due date of filing the return of income. We find that this issue had come up before the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Anil Kumar & Co (2013 (7) TMI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ments named Lake City Residence, Lake Vihar, Manju Anugraha, Lake Beauty, Lake Glacier and Lake Enclave but there were all part of one project called Lake City Residency. As per the assessee, DVO had not considered the Lake City Residence and Manju Anugraha for calculations. Assessee submitted that giving different names for each apartment was only for easy market and did not in any way effect the claim made u/s.80IB(10) of the Act. However, AO was of the opinion that assessee was unable to explain as to how it was eligible for the claim u/s.80IB(10) of the Act. He denied the claim. 04. Aggrieved assessee moved in appeal before the CIT (A). Argument of the assessee was that each project was considered as different one by the AO erroneously. According to the assessee, approved plan sanctioned by the Town Municipality of K. R. Puram, clearly mentioned that project had an area of more than one acre. As per the assessee, construction was as per the approved plan. In other words argument of the assessee was that construction having been done in an area of 3 acres 36 guntas, it had to be given the benefit of 80IB(10) of the Act. CIT (A) was however not appreciative of this contention. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... apartments are referred to this office viz., Lake Beauty, Lake Glacier and Lake Enclave. The land utilized for the above three apartments are as follows : 1 Lake Enclave 17 .90x22 80 = 408.12 Sqm or 4393 sft which is less thai 2 Lake Glacer and Lake Beauty 38.25 x29.25 = 1118.81 sqm or 12043 Sft which is less than one acre Further the assessee company has not implemented the approved plans / drawings and some portion of the land has been developed as individual plots and flats and disposed. Thus there is a total deviation in the approved plan. Also the land area involved in these projects are less than one acre and hence the admissibility under 80I(B) claim of the assessee had to be disallowed / rejected. 08. It is an admitted position that area of land where assessee was having the projects measured 3 acres and 36 guntas. Financial statements of the assessee for the relevant previous year placed at paper book pages 3 to 34 at schedule 14, has shown income from sale of flats at Lake City Residency. Obviously assessee was having income from each of the project coming in the Lake City Residency. Approval letter mentions that the plan was sanctioned for Lake C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act. This being the case, we are of the opinion that assessee was eligible for the claim of deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the Act. Nevertheless, we find from the orders of lower authorities that no verification has been done with regard to the quantum of the claim. Denial of the claim has been made for the sole reason that area of the land where the project was being executed was less than one acre. Though we hold that assessee is eligible for deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the Act, for quantification of such claim, we remand the issue back to the file of the AO. Orders of the lower authorities are set aside and the issue is remitted back to the AO for correctly quantifying the claim of the assessee u/s.80IB(10). Grounds 4 to 11 of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose. 10. Vide its grounds 12 to 14 grievance raised is that AO disallowed 30% of labour charges. Facts apropos are that assessee had claimed labour charges of ₹ 5,25,704/- on its Manju Anugraha project, and ₹ 2,55,765/- for its Lake City Residency project. AO found that above claim, were supported only by self-made vouchers and addresses of the payees were not available. According to AO, genuin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prospectively. We find that this issue had come up before the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Anil Kumar Co (supra). Their Lordships had held as under at para 3 to 6 of its judgment dt.01.02.2013 : 3. The Tribunal, after explaining the effect of the amendment by the Finance Act, 2008, held that the tax deducted during the last month of the previous year, on or before the due date specified in sub-section (1) of section 139, if they are credited within the time specified in subsection (1) of section 139, disallowance cannot be made. Therefore, it upheld the order by the appellate authority and granted relief to the assessee. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed. At the time of admission, this court has framed the following substantial questions of law : (i) Whether the amendment to section 40(a)(ia), as amended by the Finance Act, 2010, with effect from April 1, 2010, is retrospectively applicable to the assessment year 2005-06 as held by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the present case ? (ii) Whether the assessee who has credited the pressing and ginning charges to the contractors from April 1, 2004, to February 28, 2005 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
