9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 1259X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order of CIT(A) III, Chennai dated 04.03.2013. 2. The sole issued involved in this appeal of the Revenue is that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition on account of retention money on contract amounting to ₹ 3,94,28,431/-. 3. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is engaged in the business of erection, procurement and commissioning of electrical construction. The assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e reason that in earlier years also such claim of assessee was allowed, deleted addition made by the Assessing Officer. 5. Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the decision of the Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ignifluid Boilers (P) Ltd.(supra) has not been accepted by the Revenue and a SLP has been filed by the Revenue there against before the Hon ble Supreme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T Vs.Ignifluid Boilers (P) Ltd. (supra). Ld. A.R has also filed before us a copy of order of the Tribunal passed in assessee's own case in the immediately preceding Assessment Year 2008-09 in ITA No.259/Mds./12 vide order dated 02.05.12 wherein the Tribunal on the same issue and similar facts has upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal of Revenue. While doing so, the Tribunal h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ional High Court, We are, therefore, of the opinion that the CIT(Appeals) was justified in allowing the claim of the assessee for deduction of retention amounts. Ld. D.R could not show any good reason as to why the order of the Tribunal for the assessment year 2008-09 in the case of the assessee itself should not be followed in the present year appeal. He also could not bring any material on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
