9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 81X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion advances duly matched with the total outstanding mobilization advance - The Bench is not inclined to interfere in the findings of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition. Decided in favour of assessee. TDS credit denied - As observed that the claim of assesses was that mobilization advances received during the year on which TDS gets deducted stands offered as income of the same year and stand offered in the form of WIP. CIT(A) has duly taken into consideration the position of mobilization advances received during the year and the fact that when the Ld. AO has given TDS credit in ITNS 150 and therein had disallowed TDS credit to the extent Rs. 2,52,32,908/-. TDS credit cannot be added as income of the assessee as the same leads to double taxation. The cross objection of the assessee claiming TDS of the entire amount 2,52,32,908 /- instead of proportionate credit given by Ld. CIT(A) was not pressed. Disallowance of salary and wages - assessee has violated matching principle of accounting by claiming excess expenditure in proportion to the revenue offered to taxation - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) has rightly concluded that Ld. AO has mistaken in referring t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e with regard to TDS on mobilization advance was decided in favour of the assessee. Therefore, the Revenue is in appeal for A.Y. 2016-17 raising following grounds :- 1. Whether Id. CIT(A) has erred on the facts and in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 31,54,11,352/- made by AO on account of disallowance of Mobilization Advances ignoring the fact the assessee did not provide project wise details of mobilization advances adjusted and outstanding during the course of assessment proceedings. 2. Whether Id. CIT(A) has erred on the facts and in law in allowing the appeal of the assessee ignoring the fact that assessee did not provide any calculation of revenue recognised during the year which can prove that the mobilisation advances adjusted during the year have been considered in the income of the assessee. 3. Whether Id. CIT(A) has erred on the facts and in law in allowing the TDS credit to the extent of Rs. 47,37,190/- (Rs. 2,52,32,908 less 2,04,95,718/-) ignoring the fact that corresponding income of mobilisation advances was not offered to taxation by the Assessee during the year. 4. Whether Id. CIT(A) has erred on the facts and in law in deleting the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... od (POCM) followed in terms of Accounting Standards-7. The Assessing Officer had noticed a difference in the receipt reflected in Form 26AS and that credited to the profit and loss account. Assessee claimed that the same was primarily on account of mobilization advances received by the assessee and initially recognized as liability by the assessee. However, the Ld. AO was not satisfied and made an addition of 20% of the Mobilization, advances as undisclosed income u/s 68 r.w.s. 155BBE of the Act. 5. Ld. CIT(A) after analyzing all the material placed on record before the AO deleted the addition observing that details regarding mobilization advances were fully filed before the assessing officer and thus the conclusion of Ld. AO of absence of the evidences was factually incorrect. It was observed by Ld. CIT(A) that there was no basis for addition without pointing out any defect in the books or vouchers. Ld. CIT(A) also took into consideration the fact that Ld. AO has overlooked the reconciliation filed by the assessee. 6. The Bench is of considered opinion that the genuineness, identity and creditworthiness of the parties making mobilization advances was never questioned so no a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duly filed by the appellant and were also appearing in Audited financial accounts as on 31.03.2016 in Note No. 7 and 11 of the same. Appellant has shown Rs. 114.25 Crs. As long-term mobilization advances outstanding as on 31.03.2016 and Rs. 57.92 Crs as short term mobilization advances outstanding as on 31.03.2016. Thus, the observation of the AO that the appellant has not filed complete details of the same seems to be factually incorrect in view of information, facts and details available on records in the assessment folder. 9. Ld. AO failed to take into consideration the details of mobilization advances in the form of short term and long term mobilization advances duly matched with the total outstanding mobilization advances i.e. Rs. 172.17 Crs. Thus, the Bench is not inclined to interfere in the findings of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition. Accordingly ground no. 1 and 2 deserves to be allowed . 10. In regard to ground no. 3 it can be observed that the claim of assesses was that mobilization advances received during the year on which TDS gets deducted stands offered as income of the same year and stand offered in the form of WIP. Ld. CIT(A) has duly taken into conside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
