9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 870X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urther finding of fact that an amount with respect to the head Officer pertains to wrong entry of interest income in FY 2002-03 & 2003-04 with respect to toll project on capital deployed by the appellant. This finding of fat is not controverted by the ld. D/R by placing any material on record. We are in agreement with the observations of the ld. CIT(A) that reversal of income wrongly declared in earlier years, is allowable. Hence, this ground of the revenue is dismissed - Decided in favour of assessee Disallowance of u/s 80IA - Held that:- As in assessee’s own case in pertaining to the assessment year 2011-12 the assessee has demonstrated that the authorities below have taken incorrect figure of turnover. Another contention of the assessee is that the amount related to Head Office is already apportioned and, therefore, there was no need for apportionment of the same. We find merit in the contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee. Therefore, the ground raised in the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Disallowance of expenditure on account of depositing the employee’s contribution beyond the prescribed time limit - Held that:- The issue is no more res integra. The issue h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7; 1,97,491/- and delay in deposits in provident fund of ₹ 6,04,590/-. The Assessing Officer also restricted the deduction u/s 80IA of ₹ 36,32,87,646/-. 3. Aggrieved by this order, the assessee preferred an appeal before ld. CIT (A), who after considering the submissions, allowed the appeal. Thereby, the ld. CIT (A) deleted the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer in respect of contribution towards State Renewal Fund, prior period expenses and delay in deposit of PF contribution. However ld. CIT(A) restricted the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA to ₹ 9.24 lakhs against ₹ 3,84,50,924/-. Against this, the Revenue has preferred the present appeal. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that all the issues are covered in favour of the assessee. This fact is not controverted by the ld. Departmental Representatives. 4. Ground no. 1, is against deletion of disallowance of ₹ 20 lakhs made on account of contribution to State Renewal Funds. We find that the similar issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by the judgment of the Hon ble Rajasthan High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Rajasthan State Seeds Corporation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e work got withdrawn and the amount could not be recovered from PWD, this amount has been debited in this years. This contention of the appellant is acceptable. In view, of the above discussion, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, on account of the above prior period expenses to the tune of ₹ 1,94,34,645/- is directed to be deleted. With respect to the amount of ₹ 55,28,017/- pertaining to the Jodhpur unit, with respect to shuttering material, the explanation furnished by the appellant does not match the supporting order sheet entries submitted. Therefore, the nature of expenditure is not ascertainable and therefore this expenditure cannot be allowed. This disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is upheld. This ground is partly allowed. The ld. CIT(A) has given a finding of fact that with respect to the Head Office an amount of ₹ 96,08,000/- pertains to reversal of double income booked in F.Y. 2002-03 with respect to maintenance charges. The ld. CIT(A) has given further finding of fact that an amount of ₹ 2,94,25,000/- with respect to the head Officer pertains to wrong entry of interest income in FY 2002-03 2003-04 with respect to toll pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as claimed deduction u/s 80IA of the Act to the tune of ₹ 8,20,34,909/-. As the establishment and administrative expense were utilized for the entire business activities of the company which includes road bridge projects; as such the assessee was asked to show cause and explain as to why the establishment and administrative expense of ₹ 38,73,92,132/- should not be allocate proportionately to road/Bridge projects in proportion to their income of ₹ 23,00,24,830/- with total income of ₹ 64,78,66,500/- The assessee, in response to this query, made a detailed submission. However, the submissions of the assessee were not found acceptable by the AO. The AO, therefore, by relying on the provisions of section 80IA(5) allocated the direct expenses towards eligible units as well. The AO further observed that it is clear that many expenses of common nature i.e. head office and other dayto- day management and supervision expenses have not been apportioned amongst the unit claiming deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. The assessee has considered only direct operation and maintenance expenses for working out the profits of road and bridge project for claiming deduction u/s 80 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 377; 1,80,00,500/- = ₹ 4,25,46,931/- (expenditure is ₹ 1,80,00,500/- has been disallowed by the appellant in the computation of income). Therefore, the total expenditure which needs to be apportioned to the BOT projects is ₹ 21,23,87,519/- (Rs. 16,98,40,588 + ₹ 4,25,46,931/-). 5.8. In this way, disallowance under section 80IA(4) will be computed as under:- ₹ 21,23,87,519 x ₹ 23,00,24,830/ ₹ 69,89,85,491= ₹ 6,98,93,301/-. The disallowance u/s 80IA of ₹ 8,20,34,909/- made by the assessing officer is restricted to the above amount of ₹ 6,98,93,301/-. Ground 4.1 is partly allowed. The assessee has demonstrated that the authorities below have taken incorrect figure of turnover. Another contention of the assessee is that the amount related to Head Office is already apportioned and, therefore, there was no need for apportionment of the same. We find merit in the contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee. Therefore, the ground raised in the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 7. Ground no. 4 and 5 are against deletion of disallowance of ₹ 6,04,590/- made expenditure on account of depositing the employee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
