9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 414X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch stood declared in return of income filed with Revenue for AY 2003-04. So far as tribunal observations in its order dated 24.11.2010 in first round of litigation as to verification that the WIP for the impugned AY 2000-01 of ₹ 23.32 crores from the construction of residential buildings of these two societies being carried forward to subsequent years till the work was completed in AY 2003-04 of which income was being offered for taxation by assessee, we have no hesitation in holding that the assessee has sufficiently discharged its onus in proving that it only worked for these two societies since its formation in June 1997 till the construction was completed in previous year 2002-03 relevant to AY 2003-04 and the income earned from the construction work carried out with respect to these societies were ultimately offered for taxation in AY 2003-04 and due taxes paid to Revenue. The detailed reasoning is outlined by us in our conclusions as above in preceding para s of this order. Now it was for the Revenue to have brought on record cogent incriminating material to disprove and dislodge the contentions of the assessee by making necessary enquiries and investigations whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ell as on fact by applying the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. [2007] 161 Taxman 191 (SC) and other decision in favour of assessee wherein the facts are entirely different from the case under consideration. 4. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground, which may be necessary. . 3. The assessee is a contractor. The assessee filed its return of income with Revenue which was processed u/s 143(1) of the 1961 Act. Later , it was observed by the AO that the assessee has not offered any income on work in progress reported by it , although the project was almost complete. The AO reopened assessment by invoking provisions of Section 147 of the 1961 Act with the requisite prior approval of Joint Commissioner of Income-tax and notice dated 27.03.2017 u/s 148 of the 1961 Act was issued to the assessee by the AO. This led to framing of an assessment by the AO u/s 143(3) read with Section 147 of the 1961 Act , vide reassessment order dated 31.12.2007, wherein income was estimating by the AO @15% on WIP which was brought to tax by the AO in the first round of litigation. The as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spires that following the project completion method the assessee offered income in respect of these projects in assessment year 2003-2004 which has been accepted by the Revenue. Once the income is taxed in assessment year 2003-2004 on the completion of the project, there cannot be any question of taxing the same amount in the earlier years by applying a particular percentage on the amount of work in progress shown in the balance sheet. 4. However, the learned Departmental Representative brought to our notice that the Tribunal in assessment year 1997-98 recorded a categorical finding that the total work done up to assessment year 1997-98 was ₹ 36.78 crores and the total work in progress up to assessment year 2000-2001 was about ₹ 63.67 crores. It was contended that the Assessing Officer in assessment year 2001-2002 has noted that the total work in progress was only ₹ 19.59 crores. It was, therefore, contended that there was a possibility of the contracts getting completed in the assessment year under consideration and in the next year some new projects being taken up by the assessee. In the light of these facts it was contended that the factual ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee has been duly declared in the AY 2003-04 wherein total income of ₹ 51,22,966/- stood declared in the return of income filed with Revenue and due taxes stood paid to Revenue on this project. The assessee is following mercantile system of accounting. The assessee is a partnership firm having two partners namely Mayuresh Builder and M/s Satlej Properties Private Limited. The assessee firm entered into an agreement with two housing societies namely M/s Sea Breeze Co-operative Housing Society and M/s Sagar Darshan Co-operative Housing Society which were formed in the year 1993 for development of plot of land allotted to these two housing societies. The construction work was initially started by Mayuresh Builder in 1993 but the work was left incomplete due to financial difficulties and fall in real estate prices. This was the reason stated to be for formation of the assessee firm wherein Mayuresh Builder joined hand with Satlej Properties Private Limited in June 1997 as partners to constitute assessee as partnership firm for completing the construction and development work of these two societies. The assessee firm filed return of income for AY 1998-99 , declaring tota ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... since the assessee has not declared its income on completed contract method even in AY 2003-04, the same is to be brought to tax in the impugned assessment year on accrual basis in compliance with directions of the tribunal vide appellate orders dated 24.11.2010 in ITA no. 789/Mum/ 2009. The AO was of the view that the assessee has perpetrated fraud on Revenue and gross misrepresentations were made before the tribunal in first round of litigation. The assessee has claimed that it is following completed contract method of accounting and no income accrued to it as per AS-7(un-amended) issued by ICAI. The AO observed that 85% of the project is complete by the end of the previous year relevant to impugned assessment year and hence income is to be brought to tax in this year also. The AO was of the view that since in the earlier years no income was declared , then in this impugned assessment year income to the tune of 8% of work in progress needs to be brought to tax. The assessee on its part pleaded that learned CIT(A) has held in favour of the assessee in AY 1999-00 and prayers were made by the assessee that provisions of Section 147 of the 1961 Act be not applied. The contentions of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... +SSC Opening WIP during the year Exp. during (he year Total Total Rs. Upto 31/03/97 - - - - 367,801,274 AY '98-99 - 32,012,029 - 32,012,029 401,107,215 AY 99-00 32,012,029 115,228,581 - 147,240,610 516,405,958 AY 00-01 147,240,610 86,026,309 - 233,266,919 602,476,102 AY 01 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on Co. SSC SSC SSC SSC ( SSC) FY 00-01 FY-01-02 FY -02-03 Total Work- in -Progress -SB 148,184,666.75 148,184,666.75 Work -in -Progress -SD 109.133,139.68 109,133.139.68 Work- in- Progress -SB-SD 883.097,00 7,075,500.00 13,870,195.00 21,828,792.00 Sea Breeze Shopping 4,581,881.50 4.581,881.50 Sagar Darshan Shopping 4,084,752.50 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial constraints and fall in the real estate prices was not able to carry forward the construction and development work of these two projects and later assessee firm namely Sea Sagar Construction Company was formed in June 1997 with Mayuresh Builder and Satlej Properties Private Limited as partners who took over the said construction and development work of these two societies in order to complete the work. The AO observed in its remand report that in first round of litigation , the AO computed income by estimating the same @15% of the WIP shown by the assessee in its books of accounts and matter reached the tribunal , who was pleased to set aside the matter back to file of the AO with certain observations/directions. The detailed conclusions of the tribunal are reproduced in preceding para s of this order which are not repeated here. The AO also observed that in second round of litigation, the income was computed by the AO by estimating the same @8% of WIP as the project was completed to the tune of 85% while no income was offered by the assessee. 5.3.2. During Remand proceedings before the AO, the assessee participated and submitted letter dated 26.11.2012 and clai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as per Balance Sheet for AY 2001-02 , the WIP declared by the assessee is ₹ 41,77,47,724/- and the AO noted the claim of the assessee that during the FY 2000-01, the assessee claimed to have added WIP of ₹ 19,59,23,641/- which included ₹ 9,04,99,982/- transferred from Mayuresh Builders. 5.3.7. The AO observed in its remand report that the assessee had claimed that it transferred WIP of Mayuresh Builder to its books of accounts in three years i.e. AY 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04 while it also made contradictory statement in written submissions dated 26.11.2012 filed during remand proceedings before the AO that the project was completed in FY 2002-03 and till then WIP remained in the books of Mayuresh Builders and the entire WIP of Mayuresh Builder was transferred in FY 2002-03 to the books of accounts of the assessee firm. The AO noted in remand report that the assessee is making contradictory statements in remand report proceedings before the AO. 5.3.8 The AO observed in remand report that the assessee has shown following figures in its audited Balance Sheets and Profit and Loss Account , as under: A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the same @8% of WIP. Thus, the AO submitted in its remand report filed before learned CIT(A) that the assessment order dated 29.12.2011 passed by the AO u/s 143(3) read with Section 254 of the 1961 Act be upheld. It was also submitted by the AO in its remand report that learned CIT(A) is otherwise free to decide the issue on merits. 5.4 The assessee in rejoinder to remand report dated 28.02.2013 submitted before learned CIT(A) reiterated factual background of the case which are not repeated here. It was explained that Mayuresh Builder who was earlier responsible for construction and development of the two societies was also following completed contract method . The Revenue has accepted the said method in its case except for AY 1997-98, wherein income to the tune of 15% of WIP was brought to tax. The matter went to ITAT who was pleased to accept completed contract method and additions were deleted vide order dated 18.01.2005 and Revenue s appeal against said appellate order dated 18.01.2005 passed by tribunal was dismissed by Hon ble Bombay High Court vide its order dated 04.09.2008.It was explained that Mayuresh Builder incurred a total expenditure of ₹ 36 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tigation for impugned assessment year 2000-01 and submitted that tribunal accepted completed contract method of accounting followed by the assessee but there was some confusion as to the figure of WIP shown by the assessee and the matter was restored to the AO for limited purpose of ascertaining whether the two projects referred to in assessment year 2000-01 was part of the project completed in AY 2003-04 and income was offered for taxation. 5.4.4 The assessee submitted before learned CIT(A) that the AO in second round of litigation erred in observing that in AY 2000-01 , the work of the project was complete. It was submitted that these two projects were completed in the previous year relevant to AY 2003-04.It was explained that the assessee was contractor and hence no sales could be shown as the assessee did not sell the units to the society members and it is only the service charges for services rendered by the assessee which was its income which was in excess of receipts from members of the society over the expenditure on construction as reflected in its account in the previous year ended 31.03.2003 which was offered for tax, amounting to ₹ 51,22,961/- whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Darshan were undertaken by the assessee.It was also claimed , without prejudice, that in any case income of the assessee from these two projects was ₹ 51,22,961/- and even if percentage completion method is to be applied, then also the aforesaid income on proportionate basis as is relatable to year under consideration is to be brought to tax for the impugned assessment year and in that situation, appropriate adjustment is to be made while assessing income for AY 2003-04 as otherwise there will be double taxation of the same income which is not permissible. The assessee strongly objected to remarks of the AO that the assessee has evaded taxes. 5.4.8. The AO had also submitted its comments in remand report dated 28.02.2013 in response to paper book filed by the assessee. The assessee gave its replies to the said comments by the AO which are discussed by learned CIT(A) in its appellate order at para 13. These are more concerned with reconciling the differences in WIP appearing in books of accounts of Mayuresh Builder and the assessee as well transfer of WIP as is appearing in books of accounts of Mayuresh Builder to the books of accounts of the assessee. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AO state that it is not from contract which is not justifiable Thus, it was explained that the directions given by ITAT in its order for AY 2000-01 in first round of litigation had not been followed by the AO and hence assessment order dated 29.12.2011 passed by the AO u/s 143(3) read with Section 254 of the 1961 Act is bad in law. 5.4.10 It was submitted that service charges of ₹ 51,22,961/- were infact income from these two projects earned by the assessee which was offered for taxation in AY 2003-04. Our attention was drawn to Notes to accounts of the audited financial statements for AY 2003-04, which are reproduced hereunder: 1. During the year under consideration , the firm has settled accounts with both the societies viz. Sea Breeze Co-op Hsg. Society Ltd. Sagar Darshan Co-op Hsg. Soc. Ltd. And as per clause of 10 of Article of Agreement dt. 20.07.1993 . The firm has debited the sum of ₹ 39,44,75,676/- ₹ 38,94,04,619/- being cost of building project that includes cost of land, work in progress, finance expenses and all other administrative/maintenance expenses till 30.09.2002. Similarly the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... struction Private Limited , in ITA No. 4634/Mum/2008 vide order dated 30.06.2010 4. CIT v. Bilahari Investment P. Ltd [2008] (299ITR 1)(SC) . 5. ACIT v. Skylark Build [2011] 15 taxmann.com 213 (Mum.) 6. CIT v. Khoday Distilleries Ltd (Kar HC) (ITRC Nos. 19 to 21 of 1993, dated 12.9.1995) 7. CIT v. V. S. Dempo Co. Pvt. Ltd.[1996] (131 CTR 203) (Bombay) 8. CIT v. Vikas Oberoi (165 Taxation 7)(Bombay HC) 9. Awadhesh Builders v. 1TO [2010] (37 SOT 122)(Mum) 10. ACIT v. Rajesh Builders (2004-TI0L-88-ITAT-MUM) 11. ACIT v. Flowmore Pvt. Ltd. [1989] 33 TTJ (Del) 17 12. CIT v. Manju Gupta (RA No. 756/Bombay/94 and RA No. 757/Bom/94 order dated 10th Feb, 1995, Revenue required the Tribunal to refer the following question to Bom HC for its opinion. 13. Malka Construction Co. (ITA No. 4068-4069/Bom/85 dt. 7.3.1989) 14. Super Builders Developers P. Ltd. (ITA 2080/Bom/1986 dt. 5.6.1990) 15. P.D.R. Pvt. Ltd. (ITA 2704/B/82 dt. 22.1.1983) 16. D.K.Enterprises (ITA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (iii). A.Y. 1999-00: No income was offered to tax by the appellant in respect of development of two societies. CIT(A) had given opinion on the issue in favour of the assessee. (iv). A.Y. 2000-01: No income was offered to tax by the appellant in respect of development of two societies. (v). A.Y. 2001-02: No income was offered to tax by the appellant in respect of development of two societies. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) vide order dated 28.03.2003 at Nil income, accepting that the construction work of two societies had been completed during F.Y. 2002-03 (A.Y. 2003-04) and the assessee had received income and had estimated its taxable income for A.Y. 2003-04 at ₹ 52 lakhs approx. and as such no income was estimated for A.Y. 2001-02. ; (vi). A.Y. 2002-03: No income was offered to tax by the appellant in respect of development of two societies. Return was processed u/s 143(1) at Nil income. (vii). A.Y. 2003-04: The appellant claims to have offered the income to tax in respect of development of two societies. Return was processed u/s 143(1) at income of ₹ 51,96,110/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igures of WIP referred in various orders have been clarified by the assessee in its written submissions dated 28.12.2011, which are not disputed by the AO except few discrepancies reported in the Remand Report. However, I find that the assessee, in rejoinder to the remand report on 10.02.2014, has clarified most of such discrepancies reported in the remand report. 4.10. Considering the purpose for which the matter had been set aside by Hon'ble ITAT to AO, and the appellant's explanation to the confusion in figures over which the matter was so set aside and also the appellant's proving of fact that there was no other project, under WIP in any of the years except the development of said two societies, I feel no justification in going beyond the directions of Hon'ble ITAT and thereby questioning the revenue recognized in A.Y. 2003-04. Further, when the revenue recognized in A.Y. 2003-04 is not to be questioned, there can also be no justification in assessing the revenue for current year on presumptive basis, as it would amount to double taxation. It is also a fact that the appellant's own cases in prior/subsequent years on similar issue have final ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he construction owning to financial difficulties and downturn in real estate, the said M/s. Mayuresh Builders entered into partnership with M/s. Satlej Properties Private Ltd., to form a new partnership in June 1997 namely the assessee to complete the construction of these two societies. It was submitted that the aforesaid projects were completed in AY 2003-04 by assessee. It was submitted that the assessee was merely the construction contractor and plots of land were allotted by CIDCO to these two societies at Nerul for developing residential flats for the members of these two societies. It was submitted that the assessee was only entitled to profits which are left over after completion of construction work which is the difference between the contribution received from members of these societies and the cost of construction and it was submitted that in any case margin of profit of the assessee could not have exceeded 10% of the project cost as per terms of agreement with these societies. It was submitted that M/s. Mayuresh Builders were contractors till June 1997 and they transferred work- in-progress appearing in their books of accounts in three tranches spread in three years sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in ITA no. 648/Mum/2001 for AY 1997-98 vide orders dated 18.01.2005 was pleased to delete the addition for AY 1997-98 . The matter reached Hon ble Bombay High Court at the behest of Revenue in CIT v. Mayuresh Builders in ITA no. 363 of 2008 and Hon ble Bombay High Court vide orders dated 04.09.2008 noted that it is common ground that income was offered for taxation in AY 2003-04 and in this view Hon ble High Court held that no substantial question of law arises and the appeal of the Revenue stood dismissed. The aforesaid orders in the case of Mayuresh Builders as were passed by tribunal and Hon ble Bombay High Court for AY 1997-98 are placed in the file. Our attention was also drawn to assessment order dated 28.03.2003 passed by the AO u/s 143(3) for AY 2001-02 in the case of the assessee. The said assessment order is placed in file. It was explained that the AO has noted in assessment order for AY 2001-02 that the assessee carried out construction activities of two societies namely Sea Breeze Co-op. Housing Society and Sagar Darshan Co-op. Housing Society as their power of attorneys and the assessee was entitled for service charges as per agreement entered with these societies. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... material on record. We have observed that the assessee is a contractor and was engaged in the construction and development of residential buildings for members of the two societies namely M/s. Sea Breeze Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.(In short Sea Breeze ), and M/s. Sagar Darshan Co.operative Housing Society (In Short Sagar Darshan ) , at Nerul since June 1997 . 9.2 The plot of land was allotted to these two societies by CIDCO in 1993 and the contract for construction and development of residential buildings for its members were initially awarded by these two societies in 1993 to M/s. Mayuresh Builders. The said M/s Mayuresh Builder carried out construction and development of residential buildings for members of these two societies till 1997 and it is claimed that due to paucity of funds and downfall in real estate sector, the said Mayuresh Builder could not carry forward the work of construction and development of residential buildings for members of these two societies as it could not arrange for finances required for carrying forward construction work which it was obligated under contractual obligation with these societies. The said Mayuresh Builder was foll ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the said assessment year i.e. AY 1997-98. The tribunal noted that the AO has disturbed the method of accounting consistently followed since 1993 by Mayuresh Builder only in AY 1997-98 and hence additions as were made by the AO were deleted by tribunal for AY 1997-98 vide its appellate order dated 18.01.2005 The Revenue being aggrieved by the aforesaid appellate order dated 18.01.2005 passed by the tribunal filed an appeal u/s 260A of the 1961 Act with Hon ble Bombay High Court for AY 1997-98 in the case of Mayuresh Builders which appeal stood dismissed by Hon ble Bombay High Court in ITA No. 363 of 2008 vide judgment dated 04.09.2008 by holding that no substantial question of law arose in the appeal after noting that it is a common ground that on completion of the project the income was offered for tax in AY 2003-04. The said order of the tribunal and order of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mayuresh Builder for AY 1997-98 are placed in file. 9.3 Being unable to carry forward the construction and development of residential buildings for members of these two societies owing to financial constraints and downturn in real estate sector, M/s Mayuresh Builder t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid that the assessment for AY 2003-04 attained finality wherein returned income stood accepted by Revenue . The perusal of audited financial statements for the financial year 2002-03 relevant to AY 2003-04 clearly shows that service charges of ₹ 51,22,92.80 stood credited in the Profit and Loss Account for financial year ended 31.03.2003, while the returned income was to the tune of ₹ 51,96,112/- and taxes to the tune of ₹ 19.10 lacs stood paid by the assessee to the Revenue . The claim of the assessee is that it is only persuing the construction and development of residential buildings for members of these two societies namely Sea Breeze and Sagar Darshan since its formation in June 1997 till its profits were finally declared in the return of income filed for AY 2003-04 and due taxes paid by it to Revenue in AY 2003-04. Thus, it is categorically and consistently averred by the assessee that its only business activities during all these years since its inception in June 1997 till previous year relevant to AY 2003-04 was to construct and develop the residential buildings for the members of these two societies namely Sea Breeze and Sagar Darshan and no other work/c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... part from these service charges which emanated from construction and development work carried out by the assessee for these two societies and which stood declared in return of income filed with Revenue for AY 2003-04. 9.5 The assessee has also claimed that WIP as was appearing in books of accounts of Mayuresh Builders till it continued constructing residential buildings for members of these two societies were transferred to the books of accounts of the assessee in three years viz. AY 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04. The detailed charts and evidences were filed before learned CIT(A) in second round of litigation which is duly recorded by learned CIT(A) in its appellate order which we have also reproduced in this order and there is no reasons before us to hold otherwise more-so learned DR could not bring any material to the contrary. 9.6 In the case of the assessee for AY 1998-99, the learned CIT(A) has noted in its appellate order dated 12.03.2014 for the impugned assessment year 2000-01 that the AO estimated profit @8% of total receipts being presumptive rate u/s 44AD for AY 1998-99 and on appeal the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition. On further appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... completed contract method was one of the recognised method of accounting as was provided in un-amended AS-7 issued by ICAI which was amended only from 2002. The Accounting Standards issued by expert bodies like ICAI cannot be discarded in a light manner unless there are contrary provisions in 1961 Act or it is not possible to compute income correctly under the 1961 Act by following such accounting standards, as is mandated u/s 145 of the 1961 Act. The assessee is consistently following the aforesaid method of accounting to book its revenue and in any case Revenue has got all its due taxes paid in AY 2003-04. If Revenue had any inhibition as it is alleging as to suppression of profits or inflation of construction expenses/WIP or as to nature of service charges declared by the assessee in AY 2003-04 , the Revenue ought to have scrutinised the return of income for AY 2003-04 u/s 143(3) or Section 147 of the 1961 Act for AY 2003-04 or ought to have conducted investigations / enquiries to threadbare verify total WIP of ₹ 78.38 crores, expenditure incurred towards construction or amounts received/receivable from members of these two societies of ₹ 78.90 crores vis-a-vis contr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not recognised until the contract is complete. Under the said method, costs are accumulated during the course of the contract. The profit and loss is established in the last accounting period and transferred to P L account. The said method determines results only when contract is completed. This method leads to objective assessment of the results of the contract. 17. On the other hand, percentage of completion method tries to attain periodic recognition of income in order to reflect current performance. The amount of revenue recognised under this method is determined by reference to the stage of completion of the contract. The stage of completion can be looked at under this method by taking into consideration the proportion that costs incurred to date bears to the estimated total costs of contract. 18. The above indicates the difference between completed contract method and percentage of completion method. 19. In the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Taparia Tools Ltd.'s case (supra) it has been held that in every case of substitution of one method by another method, the burden is on the Department to prove that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ook over the project as such from M/s.Mayuresh Builders, the work in progress in the instant year should have been more than that. However it is noted that the assessee had shown work in progress in this year at ₹ 23.32 crores. Further in assessment year 2001-2002 the work in progress has been shown at ₹ 19.59 crore. In view of these facts it appears that there is some confusion regarding the figure of work in progress vis- - vis the project undertaken, which needs to be set right. In such a situation we set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of A.O. for deciding as to whether the two projects referred to in the assessment order for the year under consideration were part of the work completed in assessment year 2003-2004 on which income was offered for taxation. If the work in progress for the current year at ₹ 23.32 crores was carried over to subsequent years and the projects were complete in the assessment year 2003-2004 then no addition should be made in assessment year 2000-2001 as the income has been offered for taxation in this year. In the otherwise situation the Assessing Officer is free to decide as per law. 9.7. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of WIP as is appearing in the books of accounts of Mayuresh Builders and the assessee firm as at 31.03.2000 was ₹ 60,24,76,102/- , which comprised of ₹ 23,32,66,919/- in the books of accounts of the assessee firm as at 31.03.2000 and WIP of ₹ 36,92,09,183/- appearing in the books of accounts of Mayuresh Builders as at 31.03.2000. The details of WIP as is appearing in the books of Mayuresh Builders and the assessee are reproduced hereunder: Mayuresh Builders (MB) Opening W1P during the Year Total Upto 31/03/97 367,801,274 - 367,801,274 AY 98-99 367,801,274 1,293,912 369,095,186 AY 99-00 369,095,186 70,162 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 33,177,460 3,360,034 465,728,053 737,361,754 AY 03-04 465,728,053 318,152,244 - 783,880,297 783,880,297 9.7.4 Thus, as could be seen above that ₹ 60.25 crores was the combined WIP as is existing in the books of accounts of Mayuresh Builders and the assessee firm as at 31.03.2000. This also stood explained by the assessee and it could not be controverted by learned DR. Then , the tribunal recorded in its order dated 24.11.2010 that in AY 2001-02 the WIP was shown at ₹ 19.59 crores , which as could be seen from the above chart is the incremental WIP including expenditure incurred in previous year relevant to AY 2000-01 by the assessee which is recorded in books of accounts of the assessee firm. The Incremental WIP during previous year relevant to AY 2001-02 was ₹ 18,44,80,805/- while expenditure incurred during the year was & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
