9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 946X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s placed before us, we find that there is no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this ground and hence no interference is required. Addition to cost of lifts - As submitted by the Ld. AR the copies of bills have been made available to us and before the Ld. CIT(A). CIT(A) has therefore rightly considered the cost of invoices given by Kone Elevator India Private Limited for Rs. 16,05,000/- for 13 passenger capacity and Rs. 10,82,000/- for 8 passenger capacity. The cost of lifts is evidenced by the invoices issued by the supplier which was also produced before us. Therefore, on going through these documents and the facts involved in this issue, we find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and hence no interference is required on this ground. Cost of transformers estimated by the DVO - We find from the paper book page No. 66 that the invoice from Esennar Transformers Pvt Limited is placed before us where the cost of transformer is only Rs. 5,14,609/- and the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly considered the same in his order. We therefore find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and hence no interference is required on this ground. Allowing of rebate of 25% (15 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : Sri GVN Hari For the Revenue : Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR ORDER PER S. BALAKRISHNAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Visakhapatnam in appeal No. 10100/2017-18/ACIT, C-3(1), Vsp/2019-20, Dated 14-06-2019 passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 250(6) of the Act for the AY 2014-15. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company filed its return of income for the AY 2014-15 declaring total income of Rs. 53,75,296/-. Return was processed U/s. 143(1) of the Act on 30/11/2014. Subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS and the statutory notices U/s. 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and served on the assessee. In response to the notices, the assessee s Authorized Representative furnished the information as required by the AO. On verification of the submissions made by the assessee s representative, the AO considering the cost of construction of the property which was let out to Incor Hospitals has adopted the value of the property at Rs. 5,04,03,584/- as on 31/3/2014. The Ld. AO then referred the matter to the DVO vide letter dated 7/9/2016. The DVO submitted his report ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , work-orders, etc., for the material used in the work. 4) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing relief of Rs. 4,85,391/- by holding that the AO rejected the contention without any basis and as per the invoice no. 496 dated 20/03/2013 the cost of transformer is only Rs. 5,14,609/- when the AO relied on the report of the DVO, who has considered this issue and in his valuation report dated 29/06/2017 at 6.5 under infrastructure facilities the DVO noted that 50% transformer, the fighting pump etc., have been provided by the lessee and at column 10 of the said report that the assessee has not submitted any bills and/or payment details, bills raised by contractor/suppliers, work orders etc., for the material used in the work. 5) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing rebate of 25% (15% towards difference between CPWD rates and local rates and a rebate of 10% towards self supervision), when the DVO has considered this issue and, in his valuation report dated 29/06/2017, allowed relief of 7.5% towards self supervision vide his noting at column 11 of his valuation report that based on the statement made by the assessee, that he has executed the work through self supervision by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as also demonstrated before the Ld. CIT(A) and hence the Ld. CIT(A) granted relief on this issue. We also note from page 37 of the paper book which is an Annexure-1 to the DVO report and in Sl. Nos. 1.9.0 1.10.0 and 3.2 of the Annexure the DVO has considered the valuation in valuing the construction of the property. The Ld. AR pointed that these expenses were incurred by the lessee and hence adding it to the cost of construction of the assessee is not valid. We find from the valuation report of the DVO that this cost of construction has been included in the valuation report and being considered as cost of construction of the assessee. We therefore find merit in the arguments of the Ld. AR and from the materials placed before us, we find that there is no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this ground and hence no interference is required. 7. Ground No.3 is with regarding allowing relief by Ld.CIT(A) for Rs. 15,65,500/- with respect to cost of lifts. The Ld. AR submitted that the DVO erred in considering the invoices submitted for cost of lifts and has wrongly valued the same at Rs. 24,30,000/- for 13 passenger capacity and Rs. 18,22,500/- for 8 passenger capacity. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee before him and allowed the rebate of 15% towards the difference between the CPWD rates and State PWD rate and also allowed the relief of 10% towards self-supervision from the cost estimated by the DVO. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly observed the difference between the CPWD rates and local State PWD rates and we find that the rates adopted by Ld.CIT(A) is reasonable and we are of the considered view that there is no infirmity in the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and no interference is required. 10. On Ground No.6 is with regarding to the cost of construction of the property subsequent to handing over of possession to the lessee. The Ld AR submitted that the Ld. AO erred in not considering the cost of construction shown as capital work in progress in the books of accounts in the AY 2014-15 to 2016-17 for Rs. 1,84,11,777/-. The Ld. AR submitted that in order to suite the requirements of the lessee, this additional construction was warranted and it has been rightly accounted in the books of account as capital work in progress. The Ld AR also placed before us the copies of accounts submitted before the Registrar of Companies before any reference made to the DVO by the AO. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
