9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1652X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heads even though the assesses has failed to furnish documentary evidence in respect of these expenses? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and the Ld. CIT(A) was correct in allowing deduction u/s 80-lA even though assessee has not fulfilled the prescribed conditions laid down as per section 80-IA(4) of the IT Act, 1961? 3. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the grounds aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 4. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any grounds or add ground which may be necessary." 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 15.11.2007 declaring total income to the tune of Rs. 16,82,200/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Therefore, the case was selected for scrutiny and notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 were issued and served upon the assessee. Thereafter, disallowing the certain claim and also disallowing the claim u/s 80-IA(4) of the Act, the income of the assessee was assessed to the tune of Rs. 10,62,27,710/-. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) who allowed the claim of the assessee in vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which These payments were made was submitted. All these payment? supported with bills and vouchers which can be produced during remand proceeding. Site. development expenses Rs. 3,55,203/-: A detailed statement of expense incurred towards site development al Brahmanvel was submitted during assessee proceedings (a copy of which was attached for perusal). It was added that perusal statement reveal that majority of these expenses were incurred at the Brahmanvel by M/s NEG M1CGN who have recovered from the assesses com; The appellant also offered to produce debit notes raised by M/s. MEG MCON verification. V Electrical Work internal - Rs. 3,27,000/-: These expenses were incurred for maintaining the electrical poles supporting with network of transmission lines laid by the assesses They comprise of expenses varying between Rs. 2,500/- to Rs. 60,000/- paid to various persons and a copy of details/list of payments were submitted during the course of appellate proceedings were also attached The assesses also added that it was in a position to produce supporting for these expenses at remand proceedings, if required. 6.5. As mentioned earlier, all papers and evidences were forwarde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, it is observed that some amounts have been debited under the head miscellaneous expenses without further details except the name of the person to whom payment is made. This is not contradicted by the AR of the appellant and, therefore, even if the same is vouched it cannot be said that they are amenable to cross-verification. In these circumstances it would be fair and reasonable to disallow 15% of Rs. 39,36,096/- amounting to Rs. 5,90,414/- which will take care of those disallowances which may not be fully substantiated. Accordingly, disallowance to the extent of Rs. 5,90,414/- is confirmed and the appellant gets relief of Rs. 33,45,682/-. This ground of appeal is partly allowed." 8. On appraisal of the above mentioned finding, we noticed that at the time of appellate proceeding, the assessee has submitted the necessary evidence in support of his claim. However, some of the evidences were not amenable for cross verification. After going through the evidence adduced by Ld. Representative of the assessee, the CIT(A) disallowed the claim to the extent of 15% of Rs. 39,36,096/- which nowhere seems unjustifiable. Since the matter of controversy has duly been adjudicated by the CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s ABG Heavy Industries Ltd, 37 DTR (Born) 233 pronounced on 15.02.2010, followed by Pune Bench in Laxmi Civil Engg Pvt. Ltd vide its order dated 08,06.2011. In the light decision of Jurisdictional High Court, it was contended that the decision of BT. Patil & Sons relied by the Assessing Officer was not a good law as it stands impliedly overruled. The appellant also drew attention to the CIT(A)'s order for A.Y.2002-03 dated 30.03.2011 where after examining the provisions of section u/s80IA(4)(iv)(b) has given a clear cut finding that the appellant's case falls in sub-clause (b) of 80IA(4)(iv) of the given a clear cut finding that the appellant's case falls in sub-clause (b) c (A) (4)(iv) of the l.T Act. 1961 and so the appellant was entitled for deduction profits derived from network of new lines for transmission and distribution of power. 8.1. During the course of appellate proceedings attention of the appellant was drawn to the "without prejudice" findings of the Assessing Officer at pages 21 to 25 the assessment order, whereby the Assessing Officer has held that the appellant ha credited an amount of 78,67,421/- being development charges, lease rent Rs. 48.73.600/- as i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same, it is held that the appellant is entitled deduction u/s.80IA(4)(iv)(b) of the I.T Act, 1961 as it fulfills all the conditions. This if ground of appeal is allowed in appellant's favor. 8 2.1. Without prejudice to the above finding, it is observed that the appellant has claimed deduction of Rs. 3,41,50,391/- under the above section This amount forms part of Rs. 3,46,80,000/- which has been held to be the receipt for immediately preceding A.Y.2006-07 to say that the appellant's claim of offering the above amount in the current year under the head "transmission charges" and claiming corresponding deduction by way of earning a net income of Rs. 3,41.50,391- for laying of network of transmission lines for distribution of power has been negated by Taxation Authorities. It has been there consistent stand that above sum of Rs. 3,46,80,000/- belongs to immediately preceding year. 8.2.2 At the appellate stage, the appellant's contention was rejected and the action of the Assessing Officer was upheld. In view of the above, the appellant is not entitled for deduction u/s.80IA(4)(iv)(b) in the current year as advance receipt of Rs. 3,46,80,000/- has been taxed in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o as the "CIT(A)"] relevant to the A.Y.2002-03. 10. The Revenue has raised the following grounds: - 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the disallowance to Rs. 10,00,000/- out of Rs. 36,00,000/- on account of management charges paid to its sister concern M/s. King Prawns Ltd. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the deduction claimed u/s80-IA of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any grounds or add a new ground which may be necessary." 11. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 31.10.2002 declaring total income to the tune of Rs. 16,66,750/-. Thereafter, the assessee filed a revised return of income declaring total income to the tune of Rs. 16,31,150/- u/s 115JB of the Act and income at Rs.Nil under the normal provision. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 28.02.2003. The case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny. It was observed that the assessee has claimed the deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act @ 100% of the profits derived from the business resulting in Nil. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... find merit in the contention of the appellant. The assessment for the year under consideration was made for the first time u/s 147 of the Act. Prior to that the AO had completed assessment for the A.Y.2003-04 u/s 143(3) on 16.12.2005. The issue of deduction on account of management charges was examined by the AO in that year and the deduction was disallowed for the same reasons as in the case of the current year. Further, The AO also considered the applicability of 40A(2)(b) of the Act to the payment in view of common management of the appellant company and King Prawns. My predecessor vide order dt.05.04.2007 in Appeal No. CIT(A)-IX/ACIT-9(2)/IT-269/2006-07 held that the appellant had utilized services of King Prawns for developing the infrastructural facility for its wind farm activities. She observed that King Prawns had also entered into an agreement with German Partly for technical consultation for the similar project to be set up at Palghar and, therefore, it was engaged in development of such project. However, she observed, that the appellant was under the direct control and supervision of common management and therefore, the human probability of diversion of profit could no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rying on the business of "Trading and Manufacture of Prawns, Fish and Salt it had no experience in "Generation of Power". The AO has not brought on record any material to show that said King Prawns had never rendered such services. May it be true that apart from the services of the said King Prawns some other services might have been required, nevertheless it is not a case of the AO that the services actually rendered were only make belief. It may also be true that the said King Prawns was incurring losses but that itself would not be the ground for disallowance of such expenses in the hands of the appellant company. Further AO has not disputed the fact that the principal sanction was given to the said King Prawns for setting up of such project which also indicate that the said King Prawn was having the requisite capabilities to set up such project and therefore the AO should have taken note of such facts which clearly depict the capabilities of the said King Prawns. Further it is also true that the said King Prawn had also entered 6 into an agreement with German Party for technical consultation for the similar project to be set up at Palghar and therefore it is not in dispute that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee's own case for the A.Y. 2003-04 in ITA. No. 4807/M/2007 and the Hon'ble CIT has decided the matter of controversy on the basis of the said decision, hence, we are of the view CIT(A) has decided the matter of controversy judiciously and correctly which is not liable to be interfere at this appellate stage. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee against the revenue. ISSUE NO. 2:- 15. Issue no. 2 is in connection with the allowance of claim u/s 80-IA of the Act by CIT(A). The assessee has constructed the Wind Mill Farm and laying of network of transmission lines for transmission of electricity generated by each of the wind mill ( wind operated energy generated or WEG) set up in the farm from their respective WEG to the sub station of MSEB for onward transmission and distribution through state of Maharashtra. In respect of the said activity, the assessee claimed the deduction, however, the assessee did not annexed Audit Report in Form No.10CCB which was mandatory for filing the return of income. The assessee was generating the electricity through wind mill and transmitting and distributing. The claim of the assessee was declined as the assessee assigned t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... letter contains the name of the same parties listed earlier to whom the appellant had sub-leased land and collected total lease rent of Rs. 1,19,62,000. 21.2 It is seen that the appellant was issued no. Objection Certificate (NOC) u/s 44 of Electricity Supply Act 1948 by Maharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB) to install 30 MW Wind Farm Complex (10x600 KW + 1x750 KW) capacity each at Bramanwel district Dhule Maharashtra. The said NOC issued vide letter no. 34878 dt. 18.9.2001 of the Chief Engineer (Commercial) MSEB Bandra , Mumbai. It is seen from the letter that M/s. Gesallchaft Zur Nutzung Erneurerbarer Enerergien URS Mbh (GNEE) had been issued letter of intent (LOI) by Government of Maharashtra (GOM) for development of Wind Operated Electric Generator (WEGs) in Maharashtra State and the GOM had also executed an agreement for the same with GNEE on 29.01.1999. It is mentioned that the appellant signed MOU with GNEE on 29.1.1999. It is mentioned that appellant signed MOU with GNEE on 16.10.2000 for setting up WEG Project at Chatale, Tal- Palghar Dist: Thane in the 200 Acre of land to be provided by the appellant. The appellant vide letter dt. 28.8.2001 applied for 30 MW Projec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion. As per the letter, the total estimate came to Rs. 5.09 crores with 15% supervision charges at Rs. 76.35 lakhs. The letter mentions that as per the NOC with the line and bay work was to be carried out by the appellant under supervision of Superintending Engineers (O&M) Dhule by making payment of 15% supervision charges. The letter further mentons that appellant had requested vide application dt. 15.10.2001 to allow it to construct only single circuit and with only one bay. The Chief Engineer, therefore, sought approval and sanction so that necessary demand of supervision charges could be made. 21.4 Subsequently, the appellant entered into the Cooperation Agreement with TWEI on 5-11-2001 which is shown to be engaged in the business of assembling, sale, commissioning and maintenance of wind turbine and turn-key wind power plans The agreement refers to the NOC for 30MW issued by Govt. of Maharashtra to the appellant whereby it was allowed right To install and develop on turn-key basis Wind Farm (project) including overhead lines from The project site in Bramanwel lo the MSEB designated point of interconnection The agreement also mentions that for (his purpose The applicant had a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction applies to- {a) art undertaking which,- (b) starts transmission by laying network of new transmission 01 distribution beginning on flic 1st day ot Apr it. 1999 and ending on the deduction under this section to an undertaking tinder sub-clause (b) shall ho allowed only in rotation to the points front faying of such network of new fines for transmission or distribution, (c) undertakes substantial renovation and the existing network o! transmission or distribution fines at any time during the period beginning on the 1st day of April 2004 and ending on the 31st day of March, 2011. Explanation -For the purposes of this sub-clause, plant and machinery in the network o! transmission or distribution lines by at Seas! fifty pet cent of the book value of such plant and machinery as on the 1st day of April, 2004. Sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) of s 80IA(4)(iv} provide for deduction in the cases of three of undertakes ViZ tne one which is engaged m generation or generation and of power second, which start transmission or distribution lines, and the third, undertakes substantial renovation and modernization of the existing network of transmission or distribution lines All these th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st like there is generation or generation and distribution of power there is transmission or distribution of power by laying a network of new transmission or distribution lines too Therefore, there is no basis whatsoever for drawing distinction between The Two or a room for any confusion between the two propositions. 21 9 I therefore, hold that the appellant is entitled to deduction of profit derived from laying of network of new lines for transmission or distribution of power The appendant is seen to have commissioned windmills al locations of four out of seven windmill owners in the current year It is. therefore, entitled this year to deduction of profits derived from laying of transmission lines connecting These (our windmills only These no dispute on the quantum of profit of Rs. 12,64,750 showed in the Audit Report in Form No 10CCB. I, therefore, direct the AO to deduction of the said sum u/s 80-IA(4)(iv)[b}." 16. On appraisal of the above mentioned finding, we noticed that after the examination of relevant document, the CIT(A) was of the view that the transmission line connecting to the wind mills was to be laid by the appellant (contractor) which was the part and parcel of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e period beginning on the 1st day of April, 2004 and ending on the 31st day of March 2011. Explanation _ For the purposes of this sub-clause, "substantial renovation and modernisation" means an increase in the plant and machinery in the network of transmission or distribution lines by at least fifty per cent of the book value of such plant and machinery as on the 1st day of April, 2004". 5. The case of the assessee is that it is covered by clause (b) of sec. 80IA(4)(iv), since it is transmitting or distributing electricity by laying a net work of new transmission or distribution lines. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that that the assessee has laid the net work of transmission or distribution lines during the time period specified in the above said section. The assessing officer took the view that the assessee has to cumulatively comply with clauses (a) to (c) of sec. 80IA(4)(iv) in order to become eligible for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. Since the assessee is not generating power as specified in clause (a), the has taken that view that the assessee becomes ineligible to claim deduction u/s 80IA of the Act, since there is a failure on the part of the assessee to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were not introduced in one go. Accordingly, in our view, the three clauses, referred above are mutually exclusive to each other. Our view finds support from the decision of the Jaipur Bench of the Hon'ble ITAT in the case of DCIT Vs. Maharaja Shree Umaid Mills Ltd., reported in (2009) 29 SOT 278, wherein the has observed as under:- "These three types of undertakings referred to in the said sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) are different and independent of each other. Thus while dealing with one sub-clause, inference need not and cannot be drawn from the other sub- clause." Accordingly, we uphold the view taken by Ld CIT(A) that clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sec. 80IA(4)(iv) are mutually exclusive. 7. The next issue relates to the interpretation of clause (b) of sec. 80IA(4)(iv) of the Act. The Ld CIT(A) has taken the view that the said clause provides exemption only to the profit derived from laying a network of new transmission or distribution lines. Since the assessee was deriving income from sale of electricity, the Ld CIT(A) has held that the assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s 80IA in respect of profit derived from distribution of power. For arriving such a conclusi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction if the undertaking sets up network of new transmission or distribution lines on or after 1-4-1999 but before 31-3-2003 under the restructured provisions of section 80-IA of the Income-tax Act. The deduction shall be confined to the profits derived from transmission or distribution of power through the new network". As per the Circular, the intention of the proviso is to restrict the deduction u/s 80IA only in respect of profit derived from transmission or distribution of power through the new network of transmission or distribution lines. 10. We shall also try to understand the meaning of the proviso to clause (b), extracted above. Sub-sec. (1) of sec. 80IA provides that the profits and gains derived by an undertaking referred to sub-section (4) are eligible for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. Clause (iv) of sub-section (4) of sec. 80IA includes an undertaking which starts transmission or distribution by laying a network of new transmission or distribution lines at any time during the time period specified in that clause. Hence profits and gains derived by such kind of undertaking are eligible for deduction under sub-sec. (1) of sec. 80IA of the Act upon satisfying the mai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e (b) of sec. 80IA(4)(iv) of the Act. Accordingly, we set aside the order of ld CIT(A) and hold that the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 80IA(4)(iv)(b) of the Act in respect of the profits derived from distribution of power though the new network." 17. On seeing the facts and circumstances of the present case which is quite similar to the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT in the case of Kinfra Exports Promotion (supra), we are of the view that the CIT(A) has rightly allowed the claim of the assessee in view of the provision u/s 80-IA of the Act, therefore, the finding of the CIT(A) is quite correct which is not liable to be interfere with at this appellate stage. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee against the revenue. In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed. ITA NO. 547/M/2012:- 18. The facts of the present case is quite similar to the facts of the case as discussed in ITA. No.4518/M/2011, therefore, there is no need to repeat the same. The matter of controversy is also the same in which the revenue has challenged the allowance of the claim u/s 80-IA(4) of the Act. The finding in the above mentioned in ITA. No.451 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e F.Y. 2005-06. The contention of the assessee is that the assessee has received the amount of Rs. 3,46,80,000/- as advance against transmission charges from M/s. Neg Micon (India) P. Ltd. The work could not be completed before the 31.03.2006. The said amount has been treated as liability in the balance-sheet as on 31.03.2006 which has been offered as its receipt in the F.Y 2006-07, therefore, in the said circumstances, the advances is not liable to be treated as income in the F.Y. 2005-06 which has been wrongly confirmed by the CIT(A) in F.Y. 2005-06. No doubt, in the financial statement of F.Y. 2005-06, the assessee has treated the receipt of the amount of Rs. 3,46,80,000/- as advance against transmission charges from M/s. Neg Micon (India) P. Ltd. The receipt has been treated as income in the next F.Y. 2006-07. It on account of accounting principal considered by the assessee in its books of account, the situation nowhere seems violated the principal of accountancy, therefore, in the said circumstances, we are of the view that the assessee has rightly offered the said receipt as income in the F.Y. 2006-07 the period in which the work has been completed. Accordingly, we set aside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der consideration we have received total labour bills of Rs. 2,83,29,387/- from 2 contractors for the works of MIS. NEG MICON and in tum had issued bills of similar amount in the name of MIS. NEG MICON as the amount was only to be routed through us by MIS. NEG MICON as the amount was only to be routed through us by MIS. NEG MICON and as the persons to whom payments were made by us were not our contractors in respect of these bills no tax was deductible at source. We further submit that since no part of this amount had effectively come to us the question of said amount forming a part of our income also does not arise. It may be placed on record that this additional responsibility of supervising the work and making payment on behalf of MIS. NEG MICON was taken over by us totally out of business expediency because by that we were able to have control over the quality as well completion of work within reasonable period since the very earning of incme by as starts only on commissioning of the powr generation and its transmission to MESB though ultimately even in this process we have earned a generation and its transmission to MESB though ultimately even in this process we have earne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see on the bills raised by it. However, the assessee has not deducted any TDS on the payments made to the4 sub-contractors. Since the assessee has not claimed these as expenses, the payments made to subcontractors do not come under the purview of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. However, they are receipts of the assessee from MIS. NEG MICON as TDS has been deducted on such bills and claimed by the assessee. Hence, Rs. 2,83,29,387/- is added to the income of the assessee. 4.3 In the course of appeal proceedings assessee's AR has submitted as under: "In this regard and in continuation to what has been stated hereinabove my only submission, in support of the contention that the said sum is not required to be added in the case of appellant company as an alleged unrecorded receipt, because once the Ld. AO herself has accepted the fact that this sum which is simply routed through assessee has infact been passed on to other for carrying out work for MIS. NEG MICON and the sald payment has not been claimed as a deduction in the books of accounts, the question of amount received even arithmetically which is meant for giving to others legally and as per principles of accountancy cannot be t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1385/M/2012:- 24. The facts of the present case is quite similar to the facts of the case as discussed in ITA. No.4518/M/2011, therefore, there is no need to repeat the same. 25. The assessee has raised the following grounds: - "1. As regards treatment of Rs. 3,46,80,000/- (Transmission charges) 1.1 The Id. CIT (A) - 20 erred in law and on facts in not considering the amount of Rs. 3,46.80,00O/- accrued as Evacuation' Transmission Charges" as income of the year when the said amount was credited in the profit and loss accounts for the year ended 31 -03-2007 (i,e Assessment year 2007-08). 1.2 The Id. CIT (A) - 20 erred in law and on facts in treating the amount of 3,46,80,000- as income of the previous year 2005-06 (i.e. A.Y,2006-07) on receipt basis. 1.3 The Id. CIT (A) - 20 erred in law and on facts in not considering the fact that the appellant company follows '"Mercantile system of Accounting" and as such treated the amount of Rs. 3,46,80,000, - as income of the earlier year i.e. year ended 31-03-2006. 2. As regards addition /disallowance of Rs. 5,90,414/- 2.1 The Id. CIT (A) - 20 erred in law and on facts in disallowing the amount of Rs. 5,90,414/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent from he position as it existed at the assessment stage. The additions and disallowances were made at assessment stage in a summary manner without confronting the appellant. At remand stage to the position remained unchanged. 6.9. On the other hand, the appellant had furnished details of expenditure incurred which prima-facie discharges its onus. However, it is observed that some amounts have been debited under the head miscellaneous expenses without further details except the name of the person to whom payment is made. This is not contradicted by the AR of the appellant and, therefore, even if the same is vouched it cannot be said that they are amenable to cross-verification. In these circumstances, it would be fair and reasonable to disallow 15% of Rs. 39,36,096/- amounting to Rs. 5,90,414/- which will take care of those disallowance which may not be fully substantiated. Accordingly, disallowance to the extent of Rs. 5,90,414/- is confirmed and the appellant gets relief of Rs. 33,45,682/-. This ground of appeal is partly allowed." 28. On appraisal of the above said finding, we noticed that the said payment was not properly mentioned and in details the name of persons has al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IDC which was developed and divided into plots and given to on sub-lease to various wind mill owners through wind mill turbine suppliers for a period of 25 years. From these owners, owners the above amount was received for the entire Period of 25 years as deposit/advice to by adjusted over-a period of 25 years on pro-rata basis towards annual lease. The lease agreements were also filed. Since the amount received pertain to a period ot-25 years even-though the tax was deducted at source as per provisions of the Law at the time of receipt itself the same was to be offered for tax in a period of .26 years pro rata-basis and accordingly pro rata credit for TDS also has to allow in the year in is offered. It was for this reason that the assessee company has offered the income of Rs. 6,44,800/-/- pertaining to year under appeal though inadvertently credit for the entire IDS was claimed in the year itself. 7 6. In the remand report the Assessing Office^ reiterated the fact that since credit for entire TDS has been claimed "in time current year the corresponding deposit/advance in entirety has also to be-taxed. Tin the current year. The appellant drew attention to the order u/s 263 "date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wherein one of the issue addressed was this. The appellant claimed before the Hon'ble CIT-9 that it had land various parties from which a sum of Rs. 9.60 crores was received as deposit which was to be appropriated toward rent every year in equal proportion for a term of 25 years. Thus, according to the appellant only a sum of Rs. 38,40,600/- 1/25th was t axable as income in the A.Y. 2006-7. It offered to withdraw the excess claim of TDS of Rs. 27,25,203/- proportionate to the balance e rent of Rs. 9,21,60,000/-. The Hon'ble CIT-9 accepted the claim and directed the AO to withdraw the excess claim of TDS in terms of provisions of Section 199 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The AO thereafter, passed the order on 27.12.2010 giving effect to the order u/s 263 of the CIT wherein no addition was made at the balance rent of Rs. 9,21,60,000/- 7.8.3 The same principle line was adopted by the CIT -20 while deciding the appeal for A.Y.2002-03 dated 20.03.2011 wherein on receipt of advance deposit of Rs. 1,19,62,000/- only Rs. 4,78,480/- being 1/25th of the above sum was made chargeable to tax in that year and the AO was directed to grant credit for TDS proportionately. 7.8.4 Thus two authoriti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
