9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 1745X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me for the purpose of section 80IB(10) in the return of income and thereby inflating the claim of deduction to that extent; the Revenue failed to adhere to the principles of accounting and taxed the entire amount as a taxable income. In our view, the decision of both the Revenue as well as the assessee requires substantially modification considering the project completion method of accounting followed by the assessee and the said method stands undisturbed by the Revenue. As such, the expenditure is incurred in assessment year 2014-15 and we do not have the details of net profit on this CH project. Correctness of expenditure is not examined. Therefore, we are of the opinion, the matter should revisit to the file of the Assessing Officer with the following directions :- Directions : (a) The club house construction project has to be recognised as a continuation of the Midori Phase-1 the project as it has the genesis in the Midori Phase-I project originally. Per se, it is only a part of the housing project as the finances for the Club House is raised from the flat buyers only. The profits of the CH is a taxable ones as per the Affidavit. (b) The accounting methods followed by the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of approval for the first time of the project which is much earlier to the introduction of the provisions of section 115JC - Solitary housing project ever undertaken by the assessee during its life time. With this fact, if assessee what to pay the AMT tax, the same remains refundable to the assessee at the end of the permitted period. With the absence enabling provisions for such refund of AMT credit, the deduction provisions of section 80IB(10) of the Act becomes inapplicable to the eligible project of the assessee. Without going to these arguments, we find it appropriate to grant relief to the assessee on legal ground i.e. prospective application of the provisions of section 115JC qua the date of approval for the first time of the project which is much earlier to the introduction of the provisions of section 115JC. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctions as taxable income in both assessment years. Similarly, the Assessing Officer noted that there was additions in the earlier three assessment years i.e. A.Y. 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 u/s 68 of the Act. The total of the same works out to Rs.1,40,98,445/-. All these additions were considered for restricting the claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act in the assessment year 2012-13. The CIT(A) restored the assessee's claim on the said Rs.1,40,98,445/- and confirmed the charges made by the Assessing Officer to the sums of Rs.63 lakhs for the assessment year 2012-13 as well as Rs.31,49,800/- in assessment year 2013-14. Assessee aggrieved with the above. We shall now detail the facts on the said club charges. 7. Facts relating to 'club charges': There was a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act on 08.09.2010 on Mr. Vikram Gaikwad, the partner of the assessee-firm. Mr. Gaikwar gave a declaration of additional income of Rs.21.08 crores during the said proceedings. The assessee filed an application before the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) for the assessment years 2005- 06 to 2012-13 and declared the undisclosed income of Rs.27.34 crores. The addition of Rs.1,40,9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m the scope of income. However, rejecting the said argument of the assessee, and considering the assessee's original claim in the return of income, the Assessing Officer treated the CH Collections as taxable income, restricted the deduction and denied the deduction in respect of the club house receipts in all the three assessment years. In the process, the Assessing Officer conveniently adopted the assessee's own admission in the return of income that the said "advances" constitutes a taxable income but for the deduction provision of section 80IB(10) of the Act. 10. Matching Expenses: Alternatively, referring to the unfairness in denying the credit of expenses of Rs.73,48,445/- against the said CH Collections of Rs.99 lakhs, the assessee made a request for pre-poning of the expenses incurred on the club house construction in assessment year 2014-15 and tax only to the 'net income' if the deduction on the said net income u/s 80IB(10) of the Act is not allowable for any reason. The Assessing Officer rejected this argument also merely relying on the assessee's claim of deduction on entire Rs.99 lakhs as made in the return of income. Assessee did not reduce the said expenses out of Rs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The CIT(A) refused the alternate claim of the assessee i.e. in favour of taxing only the net income either in the assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 proportionately or only in assessment year 2014-15 on completion basis. 14. With regard to the denial of deduction on the additions of Rs.1,40,98,445/-, the CIT(A) granted relief and restored the claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. In this regard, the CIT(A) relied on the Jurisdictional High Court's judgement in the case of CIT vs. Sheth Developers (P) Ltd., 25 taxmann.com 173 (Bom.-HC). Thus, the CIT(A) partly allowed the assessee's appeals. Revenue is not in appeals before us. 15. Thus, the Revenue accepted the relief granted by the CIT(A) on the issue relating to cash credit addition and grant of deduction on Rs.1,40,98,445/-. There are no appeals by the Revenue in the assessment years 2009-10 till assessment year 2012-13. However, aggrieved with the above decisions of the CIT(A) qua the assessment year 2012-13, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal with the following grounds :- "1. The learned CIT(A)-12, Pune erred in law and on facts disallowance of deduction amounting to Rs. 63,00,000/ -in confirming ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lub House and the expenditure details in the assessment year 2014-15, the year of construction/completion of Club House. The same is extracted as under :- Summary of Club House Receipt and Expenses Particulars A.Y. 2012-13 A.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 As per "Appellant" A. Club House Receipts (Rs.99 lakhs) B. Club House Expenses claimed by Appellant C. Profit from Club House Receipts (AB) D. Deduction claimed u/s 80-IB(10) w.r.t. Club House E. Income offered to tax w.r.t. Club House 63,00,000 31,49,800 4,50,200 - - 78,10,182 63,00,000 31,49,800 -73,59,982 63,00,000 31,49,800 - - - - As per "Assessing Officer" A. Club House Receipts B. Club House Expenses granted by Assessing Officer C. Profit from Club House Receipts (AB) D. Deduction granted u/s 80-IB(10) w.r.t. Club House E. Income brought to tax w.r.t. Club House 63,00,000 31,49,800 4,50,200 - - - 63,00,000 31,49,800 4,50,200 - - - 63,00,000 31,49,800 4,50,200 18. Thus, refer to assessment year 2012-13, the limited issue for adjudication before us is that (i) whether the said addition of Rs.63,00,000/- is sustainable or not?; (ii) whether the claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and that it conceals nothing and that no part of it is false." 20. Thus, the assessee does not want to press the grounds relating to taxation of subscriptions, denial of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act etc. In other words, by not pressing ground 1 to 3, the CH Collection becomes taxable after netting of expenses incurred on CH. However, referring to ground 4 & 5, ld. AR now pleads for taxing the same after netting with the expenses of Rs.78,10,182/- in an appropriate assessment years. The assessee argues that the profit on CH should be ideally taxed in the assessment year 2014-15 only after granting credit to the expenses of Rs.78,10,182/-against the receipts of Rs.99,00,000/-. The ld. Counsel for the assessee argued vehemently stating that the entire gross receipts cannot be taxed and relied heavily on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgement in the case of (i) Bharat Earth Movers vs. CIT, 245 ITR 428 (SC) and (ii) Calcutta Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, 37 ITR 1 (SC). The assessee made the written submissions in this regard and the same are extracted as under :- "2. Submission w.r.t. Club-house receipts - AY 2012-13 & AY 2013-14: 2.1 Ground No. 1 to 3 - 80-IB(10) on club-house receipts: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : i. Calcutta Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT - 37 ITR 1 (SC) ii. Bharat Earth Movers Vs. CIT - 245 ITR 428 (SC)." 21. From the above submission by the AR, it is the submission of the assessee that 'due to project completion method' adopted by the assessee, the net profit becomes taxable in assessment year 2014-15. Alternatively, the claim of expenditure needs to be preponed among the 3 assessment years. Assessee relied on set matching principle. 22. Ld. DR's Submissions: Per contra, the core argument of the ld. DR for the Revenue relates to the details and claims made by the assessee in the return of income. So far as the assessee's assertions in the affidavit relating to the non-pressing of the ground no.1 to 3 is concerned, ld. DR relied heavily on the orders of the Assessing Officer/CIT(A) and the contents given by the assessee in the return of income. 23. Regarding the taxation of the profits in the assessment year 2014-15, the year of completion of the club house project, ld. DR submitted that allowing the claim of the assessee will result in reduction of the returned income to the extent of Rs.63,00,000/- for the assessment year 2012-13 and Rs.31,49,800/- for the assessment year 201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not accepted i.e. the allowability of deduction u/s 80-IB(10) of the Act. Netting of expenses has to be allowed in favour of the assessee in the assessment years proper. In our view, the decision of both the Revenue as well as the assessee requires substantially modification considering the project completion method of accounting followed by the assessee and the said method stands undisturbed by the Revenue. As such, the expenditure is incurred in assessment year 2014-15 and we do not have the details of net profit on this CH project. Correctness of expenditure is not examined. Therefore, we are of the opinion, the matter should revisit to the file of the Assessing Officer with the following directions :- Directions : (a) The club house construction project has to be recognised as a continuation of the "Midori Phase-1" the project as it has the genesis in the Midori Phase-I project originally. Per se, it is only a part of the housing project as the finances for the Club House is raised from the flat buyers only. The profits of the CH is a taxable ones as per the Affidavit. (b) The accounting methods followed by the assessee in respect of Midori Phase-I should be equal applicab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the PMC and the club house was a contractual obligation of the appellant anyway. 3. The learned CIT(A)-12 and the learned AO erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that non-mention of a facility / amenity in the approved building plan does not lead to a proposition that the related revenue / profit from such amenity is not a part of profits derived from the said housing project. The learned IT-Authorities ought to have appreciated that the said profit from club-house facility was a part and parcel of a housing project and incidental thereto. 4. Alternatively and without prejudice to Ground No. 2, & 3, the learned CIT(A)-12 and the learned AO erred in law and on facts in not granting the deduction of corresponding expenditure required to be incurred for the construction & development of the club-house. 5. Alternatively and without prejudice to the Ground No. 1, 2 & 3, the learned CIT(A)-12 and the learned AO erred in law and on facts in not shifting the income of Rs. 31,49,800/- being club house membership charges, to AY 2014-15 since the related risks and rewards were transferred only in AY 2014-15, when the said club-house was constructed & developed. 6. The learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5JC of the Act - Project Approval in 2007: Grounds no.6 and 7 relate to the applicability of the provisions of section 115JC of the Act relating to the "Special provisions for payment of tax by certain persons other than a company". Further, the additional ground raised by the assessee also connected to the grounds no.6 and 7. Considering the not pressing of certain grounds no.1, 2 & 3 and commonality of the issues raised in grounds no.4 and 5 which are already adjudicated in the assessment year 2012-13, the only issue left for adjudication relating to the applicability of the provisions of section 115JC of the Act (ground no.6 & 7 and additional ground). The relevant facts of this issue are narrated as follows. 34. Facts - Assessing Officer's case: The assessee is non-corporate assessee. So far as the MAT provisions are concerned relevant to the noncorporate assessee, the provisions of section 115JC of the Act were brought into the Statute by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 1.4.2013 qua the persons other than a company like the present assessee. According to the said provisions of the Act, the assessee is under statutory obligation to pay income tax called "Alternate Minimum Tax (AM ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same or claimed of refund of the same alternatively. All these arguments of the ld. Counsel for the assessee was rejected by the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) merely relying on the literal interpretation of the provisions of section 115JC of the Act. In this assessment year of the assessee, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee neither filed the reports of the Accountant as required u/s 115JC(2) of the Act nor paid AMT despite the facts there exist the book profits of the assessee is taxable under the AMT. The Assessing Officer observed that this new provision of section 115JC of the Act is applicable for the assessment year 2013-14 and subsequent assessment year. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer computed the AMT on the book profits of Rs.10,67,79,215/- and assessed regular tax under the normal provisions of the Act. 35. Before the CIT(A): The CIT(A) rejected the above mentioned arguments of the assessee. The CIT(A) rejected the equity based arguments of the assessee and relied heavily on the literal interpretation of the said provisions. In the process, the CIT(A) ignored the fact that the assessee does not have any other project and there is no way the credit fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tal 01/08/2006 09/02/2012 50% 50% 100% 10/02/2012 03/02/2013 64% 36% 100% 04/02/2013 02/03/2014 69% 31% 100% 03/03/2014 31/03/2019 67% 33% 100% c) Profits of Housing Project MIDORI not taxable: It is submitted that the MIDORI housing project was approved by the local authority i.e. PCMC on 30/03/2007 and was granted completion certificate by PCMC on 29/03/2012. As such, the profits of housing project MIDORI is eligible for deduction u/s 80-IB(10) of the ITA, 1961 and the same has also been granted by the learned AO. d) No separate charge of AMT: It is submitted that AMT is an alternate mechanism to normal tax and it is not a charge on income or Adjusted Total Income (ATI) per se. There is no charge of AMT on the income / ATI emerging from the combined reading f section 2(24), section 4, and section 5 of the ITA, 1961. In absence of an independent charge for AMT u/s 4 of the ITA, 1961; its scope and levy will have to be understood as an alternate mechanism of taxation. e) Section 115JC extended arm of section 115JB (earlier 115J / 115JA): It is submitted that section 115JC of the ITA, 1961 is only an extended arm of section 115JB (earlier 115J / 115JA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DCIT-247 ITR 22 (Kerala) "What is taxed is not fictional or hypothetical income-By this section certain tax concessions are restricted or curtailed to certain extent so that the company pays some tax-This is not unreasonable so as to make it violative of Art. 14 or 19 of the Constitution-Sec. 115J is not therefore illegal or unconstitutional" Further, this view is also emerging from various CBDT Circulars: - Circular No. 495 - Finance Act 1987 - Circular No. 572 - Finance Act 1990 - Circular No. 762 - Finance Act 1996 - Circular No. 794 - Finance Act 2000 - Circular No. 3 - Finance Act 2005 Copies of the above referred judgments and CBDT Circulars are attached herewith and are marked as Annexure-5 and Annexure-6 respectively. g) No occasion to claim Tax Credit: As submitted earlier, appellant firm was formed only to develop a single housing project called as MIDORI, which is eligible for deduction u/s 80-IB(10) of the ITA, 1961. If appellant is made liable to pay AMT, there will be no occasion to appellant to claim the credit of the same as there is no any other project envisaged. h) Reliance on the decision of S. K. Venture: It is submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is applicable considering the year of completion of the project. However, the date of approval by the local authorities is relevant and in both the cases the projects were approved year back in 2007 and the provisions of section 115JC of the Act which were brought into Statute by 1.4.2013 cannot be applied retrospectively as they are applied prospectively to the projects approved after the said date. 40. Considering the importance of the same, we proceed to extract the relevant contents of the said decision of the Tribunal (supra) and the same are extracted hereunder :- "5. The only issue in this appeal is against the order of the CIT(A) in sustaining the applicability of provisions of section 115 JC of the Act disregarding the fact that the housing project undertaken by the assessee has been approved prior to the date of introduction of the provisions of section 115 JC of the Act and also completion of the project. For this, the assessee has raised the following ground: "In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld CIT(A) erred in sustaining the applicability of the provisions of section 115JC in case of the assessee disregarding the fact that the housing p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te of completion certificate issued by Kalyan Dombivli Muncipal Corporation Town Planning Department dated 31.3.2012. According to him, once the assessee has completed the project before coming into force of a particular provision, that provision cannot be applied to the facts of the assessee's case or in the year when the income has been booked by the assessee in that year. Ld Counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd vs State of Uttar Pradesh and others, AIR 1979 SC 621, wherein, the Hon'ble Court has explained the doctrine of promissory estoppel and meaning thereby. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered whether the State is bound and if so to what extent it is bound by the principle of promissory estoppel. Ld Counsel relied on the following paragraphs of the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd (supra) as under: "On 10th October, 1968 a news item appeared in the National Herald in which it was stated that the State of Uttar Pradesh had decided to give exemption from sales tax for a period of three years under Section 4A of the U. P. Sales ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... various financial institutions, purchased plant and machinery from M/s. De Smith (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bombay and set up a vanaspati factory at Kanpur. The facts necessary for invoking the doctrine of promissory estoppel were, therefore, clearly present and the Government was bound to carry out the representation and exempt the appellant from sales tax in respect of sales of vanaspati effected by it in Uttar Pradesh for a period of three years from the date of commencement of the production. The Government was bound on the principle of promissory estoppel to make good the representation made by it." 8. Ld Counsel for the assessee also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Sarkar Builders, (2015) 57 taxmann.com 313(SC), wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered this issue of prospectivity and applicability of the provisions vide para 20 to 22 as under: "20) Having regard to the above, let us take note of the special features which appear in these cases: (a) In the present case, the approval of the housing project, its scope, definition and conditions, all are decided and dependent by the provisions of the relevant DC Rules. In contrast, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers to have 5000 sq.ft. or 3% of the aggregate built up area, 'whichever is higher'. In contrast, the provision earlier was 5% or 2000 sq.ft., 'whichever is less'. (g) From this provision, therefor, it is clear that the housing project contemplated under sub-section (10) of Section 80IB includes commercial establishments or shops also. Now, by way of an amendment in the form of Clause (d), an attempt is made to restrict the size of the said shops and/or commercial establishments. Therefore, by necessary implication, the said provision has to be read prospectively and not retrospectively. As is clear from the amendment, this provision came into effect only from the day the provision was substituted. Therefore, it cannot be applied to those projects which were sanctioned and commenced prior to 01.04.2005 and completed by the stipulated date, though such stipulated date is after 01.04.2005. 21) These aspects are dealt with by various High Courts elaborately and convincingly in their judgments. It is not necessary to go into the detailed reasoning given by these High Courts. However, we would like to extract the following discussion from the judgment dated 25.07.201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be revisited and/or looked at and complied with in the assessment year in which the profits are offered to tax by the Assessee. When the Assessee claims a deduction under section 80- IB(10), the Assessee is required to comply with such a condition only if it is on the statute-book on the date of the approval of the housing project and it has nothing to do with the year in which the profits are brought to tax by the Assessee. We have come to this conclusion only because we find that clause (d) of section 80-IB(10) is inextricably linked to the date of the approval of the housing project and the subsequent development/construction of the same, and has nothing to do with the profits derived therefrom. We may hasten to add that if a particular condition is not inseparably linked to the date of approval of the housing project, different considerations would arise. However, we are not called upon to decide any such condition and hence we are not laying down any general proposition of law, save and except that clause (d) of section 80-IB(10), being a condition linked to the date of the approval of the housing project, would not apply to any housing project that was approved prior to 31s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessment year 2013-14. 11. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. The admitted facts are that the assessee has claimed deduction 80IB(10), as the construction of the project was started in April, 2007 and was completed in March, 2012. We noted this fact from the paper book pages 19 to 21 of assessee, wherein, completion certificate of the project is enclosed at pages 19 to 21 of PB and English translation at pages 20-21. Ld Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to pages 20 & 21 of PB, wherein, building completion certificate issued by Kalyan Dombivli Muncipal Corporation Town Planning Department is enclosed. In view of these facts, we have considered the arguments made by both the sides and also considered the applicability of the provisions of section 115JC of the Act in the case of the assessee applied by the AO disregarding the fact that the housing project undertaken by the assessee has been approved prior to the date of introduction of the relevant provisions. The assessee is engaged in the construction and sale of immovable property i.e. builders. The housing project undertaken by the assessee was approved by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso observed that as was observed in Philips vs Eyre (1870) LR 6 QB 1 a retrospective legislation is contrary to the general principle that legislation by which the conduct of mankind is to be regulated when introduced for the first time to deal with future acts ought not to change the character of past transactions carried on upon the faith of the then existing law. 13. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the provisions of section 115JC of the Act as brought in the statute by the Finance Act (No.2) w.e.f. 1.4.13 will apply prospectively and to the projects claiming deduction under section.180IB(10) of the Act, which have come or approved on or after that date. Accordingly, this provision cannot be applied to the projects completed or approved retrospectively upto 31.3.2012. Hence, we allow the appeal of the assessee." 41. The ratio of the above decision of the Tribunal in the case of S.K. Ventures (supra) says that the provisions of section 115JC of the Act is applicable to the projects which come into existence or which are approved on or after that date i.e. 01.04.2013. The said new provisions of the Act are not applicable retrospectively to the projec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee's contention that the provisions introduced in the assessment year 2013-14 and the provisions of section 115JC of the Act cannot be applied to the projects cleared by the local authorities in earlier year i.e. in 2007 as in the case of the assessee. The relevant parts of the legal submission made by the ld. AR for the Assessee are extracted as under :- "1. CIT vs. Sarkar Builders - 375 ITR 392 (SC) 17) Thereafter, significant amendment, with which we are directly concerned, was carried out by Finance (No.2) Act, 2004 with effect from 1.4.2005. This amendment has already been noted above. The Legislature made substantial changes in sub-section (10). Several new conditions were incorporated for the first time, including the condition mentioned in clause (d). This condition/restriction was not on the statute book earlier when all these projects were sanctioned. Another important amendment was made by this Act to sub-section (14) of Section 80IB with effect from 1.4.2005 and for the first time under clause (a) thereof the words 'built-up area' were defined. Section 80IB(14)(a) reads as under: "(14) For the purposes of this section - (a) "built-up area" mea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e cases of block assessments and thereby making it prospective in nature. The charge in respect of the surcharge, having been created for the first time by the insertion of the proviso to Section 113, is clearly a substantive provision and hence is to be construed prospective in operation. The amendment neither purports to be merely clarificatory nor is there any material to suggest that it was intended by Parliament. Furthermore, an amendment made to a taxing statute can be said to be intended to remove 'hardships' only of the assessee, not of the Department. On the contrary, imposing a retrospective levy on the assessee would have caused undue hardship and for that reason Parliament specifically chose to make the proviso effective from 1.6.2002. 40. The aforesaid discursive of ours also makes it obvious that the conclusion of the Division Bench in Suresh N. Gupta treating the proviso as clarificatory and giving it retrospective effect is not a correct conclusion. Said judgment is accordingly overruled. 41. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the appeals filed by the Income Tax Department are hereby dismissed. Appeals of the assessees are allowed deleting the surc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2A after 31st May, 2003". Thus, when the legislature thought it fit to make the amendment in section 153B of the Act relating to time limit of assessment under section 153A of the Act retrospective from a particular date, it provided that such retrospectivity would relate to cases where the search is initiated or books of account, documents or other assets are requisitioned, from such date. Thus, even the legislature has considered the initiation of search or making of requisition as the trigger point for applying the provisions of section 153B of the Act to assessment under section 153A of the Act. Under section 153C of the Act also, ultimately, assessment or reassessment is required to be made in accordance with section 153A of the Act. Thus, when the amended provisions of section 153C (1) of the Act have been brought into force with effect from 1st June, 2015, it has to be construed that such amended provisions would apply to a search initiated under section 132 or in relation to books of account, other documents or any assets requisitioned under section 132A of the Act after 31st May, 2015. Consequently, in relation to searches carried out till 31st May 2015, it was not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hod. It is submitted, methods of accounting are merely rules for deducing correct profits in a given case, and nothing more. Such methods of accounting ought not to change responsibilities of taxation in substance. Even CBDT has accepted this principle and has issued an Instruction No. 4/2009 dated 30/6/2009 regarding eligibility of deduction u/s 80-IB(10) and PCM. In the present case, Appellant would have never entered into the taxable ken of AMT provisions, had it been following PCM, as the entire construction work was already over before 31/3/2012. Appellant ought not to be subjected to AMT provisions simply because it is following CCM instead of PCM." 47. From the above, we find the assessee is caught unaware legally by the new law brought into statute for the assessment year 2013-14. Thus, we find it is unfair to apply the new section 115JC of the Act to the assessee's project approved in 2007. Considering the above decision of the Tribunal (supra), the commonality of the facts of both the cases and the legal submissions of the AR above, we find it is settled legal issue on the matter at the level of the Tribunal and the provision of section 115JC of the Act need to be applie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
