9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 2062X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Chennai, in ITA No. 15/CIT(A)-5/2014-15 dated 20.07.2017 for the AY 2011-12. 2. Shri N.Madhavan, JCIT, represented on behalf of the Revenue and Shri D.Anand, Adv., represented on behalf of the assessee. 3. As the appeals are related to the same assessee and have common issues, the same are being disposed off by this common order. 4. The appeals filed by the assessee were delayed by one day, for which, the assessees have filed necessary Affidavits for condonation of the delay, to which, the Revenue has not raised nay serious objection. Consequently, the delay of one day in filing of the appeals stand condoned and the appeals are disposed off on merits. ITA No. 2389/Chny/2017 for the AY 2010-11: 5. In th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are duly reflected in Form 26AS and Annual tax Statement under section 203AA of the Income Tax Act. 7. The learned CIT(A) erred in law in levying interest under section 234B, 234D and 244A of the Income Tax Act. For these and other grounds that may be rendered at the time of hearing it is most humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to allow the appellants appeal and thus render justice. 6. It was submitted by the Ld.AR that in regard to Ground No. 2 the assessee is in the business of civil contract and other related works. The assessee had during the relevant Assessment Year been awarded a contract work by its holding company M/s.Marg Ltd., for the development work at the site of M/s.Dishman Infrastructure Ltd., for SE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmission that the quantification of the area as taken by the AO on 08.01.2010 had been revised and the Invoice was for an area of only 9 lakhs Sq. Mtrs. It was a submission that the AO in his Assessment Order has recognized the figure of Rs. 9,63,,25,478/- which, in fact, is the Ledger value of Rs. 9,63,25,000/- and the Invoice amount. It was a submission that no disallowance in respect of the same was called for in the hands of the assessee. It was a further submission that in respect of Ground Nos.3 to 6, the issue was identical to the issue decided in the case of sister concern company M/s.Arohi Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., and M/s.Aparti Constructions Pvt. Ltd., in ITA No. 2391/Chny/2017 & ITA No. 2392/Chny/2017 respectively dated 03.05.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ine or that it is not proved. A perusal of the sub-contract as also the Invoice clearly shows that the area is an estimated quantity only. This being so, we find no reason to disallow the expenditure nor is there any evidence to show that the transaction entered into between the assessee and M/s.Coastal Projects Pvt. Ltd., was not genuine. In these circumstances, the addition as made by the AO in respect of the subcontracting of the contract work to M/s.Coastal Projects Pvt. Ltd. representing the expenses claimed towards cost of operation stands deleted. 11. In regard to the issue of disallowance of the expenditure towards interest to an extent of Rs. 5,73,85,943/- disallowed by the AO, it is noticed that the issue is squarely covered by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essees have used such loans for the purpose of giving further loans then the interest paid is liable to be allowed and it is only the net of the interest which is liable to be assessed as the income of the assessees. The AO shall also verify as to whether the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the assessees company permit the assessees company to give loans. The AO shall, after verifying the same, re-adjudicate the issue in accordance with law. 12. Respectfully following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal, the issue is restored to the file of the AO for re-adjudication on identical lines as decided in ITA No. 2391/Chny/2017 & ITA No. 2392/Chny/2017 dated 03.05.2018. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ow the appellants appeal and thus render justice. 14. In regard to Ground No. 2, it was submitted by the Ld.AR that the AO in the course of the assessment made an addition of Rs. 9.00 Crs. on the ground that the same was offered in the course of the survey but the assessee had not disclosed the same in the return. It was a submission that the AO had called for certain details vide letter dated 22.07.2014 and the assessment was completed on 31.03.2014. The assessee was unable to substantiate the details before the AO as the assessee was stuck in certain litigations. It was a submission that he has no objection if the issue is restored to the file of the AO for re-adjudication. 15. In reply, the Ld.DR vehemently supported the order of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
