9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 27X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under consideration - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the decisions rendered by this court in the case of PRESTIGE ESTATE PROJECTS[ 2020 (5) TMI 239 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] , BANJARA DEVELOPERS CONSTRUCTIONS (P) LTD. [ 2020 (7) TMI 285 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] , VARUN DEVELOPERS [ 2021 (2) TMI 997 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] , S.N. BUILDERS DEVELOPERS[ 2021 (1) TMI 789 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] as well as the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in EXCEL INDUSTRIES [ 2013 (10) TMI 324 - SUPREME COURT] and in BILAHARI INVESTMENTS [ 2008 (2) TMI 23 - SUPREME COURT] and taking into account the fact that the Revenue itself has recognized the completed contract method for computation of the subsequent Assessment years, that is 2013-2014 and 2014- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cant advances and also project is complete around 97% and as such, the date of completion of registration becomes insignificant as it is a mere tactic to postpone payment of income tax which is due for taxation for period under consideration? ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the tax effect is neutral / revenue neutral proposition whereas it is against the real income theory of 'pay as you earn' and further it is not tax neutral because the assessee gets 'such fund' which ought to have been deposited as tax, at his disposal and also interest calculated on such fund? iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (3) read with Section 153-A of the Act on 31.03.2014 for the Assessment years 2010- 2011, 2011-2012 and 2012-2013. In the Assessment order, the Assessing Officer had adopted the percentage completion method holding that the assessee ought to have followed the same in accordance with the Accounting Standard-7. The assessee thereupon filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in respect of Assessment year 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), by a common order dated 30.03.2016, dismissed the appeals preferred by the assessee. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal, by a common order dated 02.05.2018, interalia held that the is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... STRUCTIONS P. LTD. (2020) 117 TAXMANN.COM 747 (KAR) iii) CIT vs. S.N. BUILDERS DEVELOPERS IN ITA No.393 OF 2014 DATED 07.01.2021 (KAR) iv) CIT vs. S.N. BUILDERS DEVELOPERS IN ITA No.739 OF 2018 DATED 20.01.2021 (KAR) v) DCIT vs. VARUN DEVELOPERS IN ITA No.198 OF 2014 DATED 08.02.2021. 7. It is further submitted that since the assessee has adopted one of the two methods which is permissible in law, the same does not impact the overall revenue of the Department, as the amount which could not be subjected to tax in the Assessment year 2010- 2011 and 2011-2012 if any, would be taxed in the subsequent years, i.e., in the Assessment year 2012- 2013. It is also pointed out that no portion of project is completed in Assessmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
