9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 212X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in which income from project has been declared has reduced the amount of 19.51 lacs paid as penalty/fine to BMC? - HELD THAT:- Assessing Officer in his remand report has mentioned that the assessee in its revised computation for assessment year 2017-18 has reduced penalty/fine. CIT(A) has not granted relief to the assessee merely for the reason that in the Tax Audit Report for assessment year 2017 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n behalf of the assessee submitted that the assessee is a builder and developer. The assessee is following Project Completion Method for recognition of profit. The assessee for the impugned assessment year filed return of income on 30/09/2013 declaring 'Nil' income. During the period relevant to the assessment year under appeal the assessee had paid regularisation charges amounting to ₹ 19,5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IT(A) without appreciating the facts rejected assessee's contention and upheld the assessment order, hence, the present appeal by the assessee. 3. Per contra, Shri Ajay Pratap Singh representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned order. The ld.Departmental Representative submitted that the penalty/fine paid to BMC is not allowable in the scheme of section 37(1) of the Act. The submis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee is following Project Completion Method to recognise profits has not been disputed by the Revenue. The only issue is, whether the assessee in return of income for the year in which income from project has been declared has reduced the amount of ₹ 19.51 lacs paid as penalty/fine to BMC?. We observe from the impugned order (Para-6) that the CIT(A) had sought remand report from the Assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
