9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot acceptable. Hence, the cost of the project as estimated by the architect appears to be correct. The flats were not handed over the buyers as the assessee was not allowed to do so by NOIDA. The assessee could sell only 44% of the total project area and the assessee had entered into individual contracts with the buyers which are legally enforceable. The significant performance w.r.t. the remaining component of the project is pending and the revenue in respect of such individual contract cannot be recognized until the remaining components are completed. Estimated cost of the project as per the architect, the assessee had only incurred 16.42% of the expenditure on the construction. CIT(A) has rightly allowed the claim of the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r:- i) The CIT(A) has erred in allowing the appeal of assessee as the base of valuation report of an architect inquiry the finding of AO that too remanding back the matter. ii) The appellant craves leave, to add, alter or amend any ground of appeal raised above at the time of hearing. 3. The brief facts of the case are that assessee filed income tax return, declaring loss of ₹ 64,65,667/- on 19.9.2012. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as Act) was issued on 6.8.2013. Again notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act alongwith questionnaire was issued on 21.5.2014. Due to change in the incumbency of jurisdiction a fresh notice u/s. 142(1) of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deciding the present appeal exparte qua assessee, after hearing the Ld. DR and perusing the records. 6. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the records, especially the impugned order. With regard to addition of ₹ 8,59,25,000/- is concerned, we find that the main issue is with reference to the estimated cost of project and consequential application of Accounting Standard-7 for recognition of the project revenue, project cost and project income. As estimated by the Assessing Officer the cost of the project should be at ₹ 200 crores whereas the assessee estimate comes to ₹ 305 crores. The AO's estimate is not based on any material on record whereas the assessee has submitted a certificate from the Architect. During t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essing Officer these expenses are not allowable as these have not been estimated by the appellant in its project cost. Infact these expenses are not part of the project cost but are in the nature of overhead expenses. The Assessing Officer also has not declared these expenses to be unjustified or bogus and hence, Ld. CIT(A) has rightly allowed these expenses totaling to ₹ 16,53,396/- u/s 37(1) and deleted the addition in dispute and rightly directed the AO to allow the carry forward of losses of previous year amounting to ₹ 9,67,732/-, which does not need any interference on our part, therefore, we uphold the action of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and reject the ground raised by the Revenue. 7. In the result, the Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
