9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 925X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out any basis construed that WIP belonged to the assessee, Accordingly, the Tribunal confirmed claim of the assessee. CIT(A) has reproduced order of the Tribunal in entirety for appreciating the facts in right perspective. In view of this fact, there is no reason for us to deviate from the findings of the ld.CIT(A) based on findings of the ITAT in the assessee s own case cited (supra), and therefore, which we uphold and confirm deletion of additions on account of estimation of work-in-progress for both the years. Thus, ground no.1 of both appeals of the Revenue stand rejected. Addition u/s 14A read with Rule 8D - disallowance of interest expenses - assessee explained that the investment was made out of interest free funds available ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ORDER PER RAJPAL YADAV, VICE-PRESIDENT These appeals are by the Revenue against separate orders of ld.CIT(A)- 9, Ahmedabad of even dated i.e. 2.4.2019 passed for the Asstt.Years 2005-06 and 2013-14. Since identical issues are involved in both the appeals, they are disposed of by this consolidated order. 2. Only ground in Asstt.Year 2005-06 and first ground in the Asstt.Year 2013-14 are identical except variation in quantum of amount. In other words, the grievance of the Revenue in both the above assessment years is that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 3,68,66,552/- for the Asstt.Year 2005-06 and ₹ 7,03,93,962/- for the Asstt.Year 2013-14 made on account of estimatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Asstt.Year 2008-09 and ITA No.1114/Ahd/2005 for the Asstt.Years 1997-98. The crux of the conclusion in these orders is that the assessee is neither owner of the project nor WIP belonged to it. The assessee has received the booking amount on behalf of the co-operative societies for development activity, and there was no material with the Department to demonstrate that the alleged receipts were meant for the assessee, and income qua this receipt accrued to the assessee. The ld.CIT(A) has substantially reproduced the above orders of the Tribunal while deciding the issue in favour of the assessee in the impugned order. Dissatisfied with order of the ld.CIT(A) in deleting the impugned additions, Revenue is before the Tribunal. 4. The ld.DR re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judication is ground no.2, i.e. deletion of addition of ₹ 3,06,946/- out of total addition of ₹ 4,44,107/- made under section 14A of the Act for the Asstt.Year 2013-14. 7. During the assessment proceedings, the ld.AO noticed that the assessee has made substantial investment which yielded tax exempt income. The ld.AO was under a belief that such investment was made out of borrowed funds. The ld.AO accordingly issued show cause notice as to why disallowance of interest expenses under the provisions of section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Act should be made. In response thereof, the assessee explained that the investment was made out of interest free funds available with the assessee, and therefore, no expenditure was incurred b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were ₹ 21,51,05,90/- as on 31.3.2012, and against which investment was only ₹ 2,74,32,264/- as on 31.3.2013 whereas it was ₹ 2,74,32,264/- on 31.3.2012. He further submitted that ratio of surplus available with the assessee is more than the last year, i.e. in the Asstt.Year 2012-13 it was 7.84 times while in the asstt.Year 2013-14 it was 8.72 times, and therefore, the assessee had sufficient interest free funds in excess of investment made for earning tax free income, and therefore, invocation of provisions section 14A read with rule 8D is not justified. 11. We have heard rivals submissions and gone through the record carefully. We find that action of the ld.AO in making disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
