9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 1179X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lable on record also, we find that in assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03, the Tribunal has followed earlier Tribunal decision for assessment year 94-95 and 96-97. Hence, it is seen that this issue has consistently been decided in favour of the assessee and no difference in facts could be pointed out by Learned D.R. of the Revenue. Hence, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view. Retention money - Held that:- No difference in facts could be pointed out by Learned D.R. of the Revenue. Moreover, during the present year, the assessee has reduced an amount of 1,455.17 lacs from its income on account of retention money but the assessee has offered a larger amount of 8,039.29 lacs to tax being retention money not offered to tax in earlier years but offer to tax in present year on account of expiry of deferred liability period. Hence, it is seen that if the present year is considered in isolation, the amount offered to tax is more than the amount of income reduced from the income on account of retention money. This is also very important that at the end of the financial year 2010 – 11, the entire amount of retention money was offered to tax and considering these facts that no di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent by Shri B. P. Yadav, Cost Accountant O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. This appeal is filed by the Revenue, which is directed against the order of learned CIT (A)-III, Lucknow dated 22/02/2014 for the assessment year 2009-2010. 2. Ground No. 1 is as under: "1. That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 1,56,786/- made on account of depreciation of Iraqi assets without appreciating the facts and material brought on record by the Assessing Officer." 3. Learned D. R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A. R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). He also submitted that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal decision in assessee's own case for various assessment years from 2001-02 to 2006-07 and all the Tribunal decisions are available on pages 1 to 84 of the paper book. 4. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that this issue was decided by CIT(A) by following the Tribunal orders in assessee's own case for various assessment years. He has also given a finding that there is no change in the facts in the present year. Learned D.R. of the Revenue coul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee and no difference in facts could be pointed out by Learned D.R. of the Revenue. Hence, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view. Ground No. 2 is also rejected. 8. Ground No. 3 is as under: "3(a) That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 2,46,000/- made on account of interest on overdue bills of Iraq work without appreciating the facts and material brought on record by the Assessing Officer. 3(b) That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in not appreciating that the assessee had unilaterally decided not to charge interest on such outstanding and that there was no evidence to show that the concerned parties had denied their liability to pay interest on outstanding bills of the assessee." 9. Learned D. R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A. R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). He also submitted that this issue is also covered in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal decision in assessee's own case for assessment years 2001-02 to 2006-07, copy of which is available in the paper book. 10. We have considered the rival submissions. Learned D.R. of the Revenue c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r 2011-12. 14. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that CIT(A) has decided the issue in favour of the assessee by following the Tribunal decision in assessee's own case for various earlier years. No difference in facts could be pointed out by Learned D.R. of the Revenue. Moreover, during the present year, the assessee has reduced an amount of ₹ 1,455.17 lacs from its income on account of retention money but the assessee has offered a larger amount of ₹ 8,039.29 lacs to tax being retention money not offered to tax in earlier years but offer to tax in present year on account of expiry of deferred liability period. Hence, it is seen that if the present year is considered in isolation, the amount offered to tax is more than the amount of income reduced from the income on account of retention money. This is also very important that at the end of the financial year 2010 - 11, the entire amount of retention money was offered to tax and considering these facts that no difference in facts could be pointed out by Learned D.R. of the Revenue, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view. Accordingly, ground No. 4 is also rejected. 15. Ground No. 5 is as under: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A." 22. Learned D. R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A. R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). He also submitted that in assessment year 2007-08, the assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) as per order dated 31/12/2009, copy of which is available on pages 177 to 184 of the paper book. He further pointed out that as per this assessment order for assessment year 2007-08, no disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer on account of deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 80IA. It is also submitted that on page No. 176 of the paper book is copy of computation filed by the assessee along with the return of income for assessment year 2007-08 and as per the same, the assessee claimed deduction of ₹ 6,589.29 lacs u/s 80IA in that year. He contended that when the same deduction was allowed by the Assessing Officer himself in assessment year 2007-08, the claim of the assessee in the present year i.e. assessment year 2009-10 cannot be disputed. 23. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that this is the main objection of the Assessing Officer that in the absence of accounts and balance sheet of the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
