9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 823X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... payable as on 31st March of every year and cannot be invoked to disallow the amounts which have already been paid during the PY, without deducting the tax at source. Since the assessee has already paid the amount during the PY and no amount is there to be payable as on 31st March, we uphold the order of CIT(A) and dismiss the ground raised by the revenue on this issue. - ITA No. 1746/Hyd/2016 - - - Dated:- 7-4-2017 - SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT, AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Revenue : Shri K.J. Rao For The Assessee : Shri P. Raghava Narayana ORDER PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M.: This is an appeal of the revenue directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax(A) - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order of the Appellate Commissioner and directed the A.O to redo the assessment after providing an opportunity to the assessee. 4.2 The A.O took up the case for scrutiny and passed an order u/s.143(3) r.w.s 254 of the Income Tax on 28.02.2014, on a total Income of ₹ 2,51,75,680/- as against ₹ 81,72,158/- declared by the assessee. While doing so the A.O made the following additions: Particulars Rs. 1. Disallowance of direct/indirect expenses 49,63,343/- 2. Addition on undisclosed sales 7,00,000/- 3. Disallowance u/s 40A(3) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decision was suspended by the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh? 5. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing. 7. Ground Nos. 1 5 are general in nature. 8. As regards ground Nos. 2 3 relating to allowability of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of I.T. Act, 1961, it is observed that the assessee owns, maintains and operates an industrial park by name Fortune 9 , Somajiguda. The assessee claimed relief u/s 80IA(4) of the Act, in respect of lease income derived from the units leased out in this industrial park. The AO observed that the assessee out of allocable constructed area of 1,64,632 sft., more than 50% area i.e. 1,25,515 given to M/s ADP Pvt. Ltd. Thus, the assessee deviated from the specific condition im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mit that 50% or more should not be given applies only to automatic route application and not to on automatic application. 4. The Assessee having applied under the non automatic route has given in the said application at Clause VII that the proposed number of units are only 3. (Page 23). 5. In response to the application under the non automatic route, The Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India, vide its letter dated 25.09.2006 has accorded permission for setting the industrial park under the non automatic route.( Pages 25 to 28 ) 6. The permission given has not restricted the percentage of the let out area should be less than 50%. It only says that the proposed number of industrial units as mentioned on clau ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see u/s 80IA(4)(iii) of the Act. 11. Considered the rival submissions and perused the material facts on record. The issue under consideration is squarely covered by the decision of the coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Annapurna Builders (supra). The ld. DR neither controverted this fact nor brought any contrary decision in this regard. Therefore, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) in allowing the assessee s claim of deduction u/s80IA(4)(iii) as his decision is in consonance with the decision of the coordinate bench. Accordingly, we dismiss ground Nos. 2 3 of revenue. 12. As regards ground No. 4 relating to disallowance of ₹ 1,01,11,201/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act, the AO disallowed the assessee s claim of deducti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
