9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 2091X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 2287/Bang/2016 - - - Dated:- 28-2-2018 - SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For the Appellant : Shri K.R Vasudevan, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri C.H Sundar Rao, CIT ORDER PER SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) -6, Bangalore dated 9/9/2016 for asst. year 2012-13. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, relevant for disposal of this appeal, are as under:- 2.1 The assessee, a joint venture formed by MCML System Pvt. Ltd., and ECI Engineering Construction Co. Ltd., engaged in business as contractors, filed its return of income for asst. year 2012- 13 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icable. 3. The assesse was only a special purpose vehicle (SPV) formed for execution of works contract with RVNL. The JV partners in turn sub-divided the works to be executed, to McML SYSTEMS PVT LTD (McML) ECI Constructions, for their part of works as per the supplementary JV agreement for supply and execution of contract bearing on same terms and conditions which RVNL imposed on JV. So JV will be passing on all income and expenses to McML without any adding any profit element in its transactions as well as to ECI. Every bill raised by McML or ECI on JV will be in turn be raised on R VNL wit/tout profit element is added and actual proceeds from R VNL on each bill will be passed on to respective IV partners, to McML or ECI by the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onal grounds raised, without adjudicating the grounds of appeal at S.Nos. 1 to 4 raised by the assessee. It was prayed that on this short point alone, the matter be restored to the file of the ld CIT(A) for adjudicating the grounds 1 to 4 raised by the assessee. 3.3 The ld DR for Revenue, on his part, also fairly conceded that the grounds S.No. 1 to 4 of assessee s appeal having not been adjudicated by the ld CIT(A), the same may be restored to her file for adjudication. 3.4 We have heard the parties and perused and carefully considered the material on record. As submitted by the counsels on both sides it is clearly evident from a reading of the impugned order that the ld CIT(A) has disposed off the assessee s appeal after adjudicatin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
