9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2552X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tted before AO and also reconciled with the statutory form 16 filed by M/s FA CAO (Construction) and South Central Railway with books of the assessee and JV companies. It demonstrates that there is no escapement of income or prejudicial to the interests of revenue. Moreover, if we add the turnover of the JV companies to the assessee’s gross turnover, it amounts to double taxation. Accordingly, we hereby reject the observations of the Pr. CIT and quash the order passed by him u/s 263 of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 796/Hyd/2015 - - - Dated:- 30-10-2015 - SMT P.MADHAVI DEVI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RIFAUR RAHAMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Assessee : Shri G. Manikya Prasad For The Revenue : Smt. K. Mythili ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the I.T. Act and net profit from contract works was estimated at 9% on the turnover. The assessee had admitted gross turnover of ₹ 2,89,69,203/- and claimed interest income of ₹ 2,51,323for the Asst. Year 2011-12. Hence, the AO estimated business profit @ 9% on ₹ 2,87,17,880/- (Rs.2,89,69,203 - Interest income of ₹ 2,51,323), which worked out to ₹ 25,84,610. The income from other sources as admitted by the assessee at ₹ 2,51,323/- was added to the income estimated as above. 4. Subsequently, Pr. CIT, on verification of the assessment records, noticed that the following issues were not examined by AO while completing assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act. (Act). (i) the turnover was adopted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd M/s RNR YMKR another joint venture of ₹ 3,41,36,353. Further, ld. AR submitted that assessee company is holding major share of 70% in the above two JV concerns and accordingly showed the turnover of these two JVs as turnover of the company in the accounts in order to facilitate eligibility for future tenders. It was further submitted by ld. AR that during the course of scrutiny proceedings, the facts were placed before the Addl. CIT and after due consideration, the Addl. CIT allowed the claim of assessee while estimating the net profit on the turnover of assessee company alone and excluded the turnovers of the two JVs. 4.3 The Pr. CIT did not appreciate the submissions of ld. AR of assessee and observed that AO failed to exami ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pany and also highlighted in the Notes to the Accounts, a copy of which is submitted vide page 19 of the paper book. Ld. AR submitted that the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Goetz India Ltd. (supra) relied upon by Pr. CIT is distinguishable on the facts to the case of assessee. Ld. AR submitted that AO has called for books of account, return of income and also Form No. 16 of the both JV companies before accepting assessee s claim of its turnover of ₹ 2,89,69,203 and made estimated profit on the above said gross turnover. Ld. AR submitted that there is no loss to the revenue as total gross sales were offered for tax in the company as well as JV companies. Ld. AR also relied on the judgment of the Hon ble Gujarat High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he State has not been realised or cannot be realised. The well settled principle in considering the question whether an order is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue or not is to address oneself whether the legitimate revenue due to the exchequer has been realised or not or can be realised or not if the orders under consideration are allowed to stand. For arriving at this conclusion, it becomes necessary and relevant to consider whether the income in respect of which tax is to be realised, has been subjected to tax or not or if it is subjected to tax, whether it has been subjected to tax at the rate at which it could yield the maximum revenue in accordance with law or not. If the income in question has been taxed and legitimate reven ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment of the income in question in the hands of four different assessees for the relevant assessment years. The Tribunal has been right in law in setting aside the order of the CIT made under s. 263 6.1 Ld. AR also relied upon the order of the coordinate bench of ITAT, Hyderabad in ITA No. 997/Hyd/2014, dated 05/08/2015. 7. Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied upon the order of Pr. CIT and submitted that the action of the Pr. CIT is justified. 8. We have heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material on record as well as the orders of revenue authorities as also the cases cited by ld. AR. First of all, the assessee company has presented its annual reports and included the gross turnover of JV companies as its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
