9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 270X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Accordingly, the Tribunal had confirmed the claim of the assessee and the ld. CIT(A) in the current year had followed the order of the Tribunal. CIT(A) has reproduced the order of the ITAT in entirety in order to properly appreciate the facts of the case. No reason to deviate from the finding of the ld. CIT(A) which was based on the finding of the ITAT in the assessee s own case cited supra. We, therefore, upheld and confirm the deletion of addition on account of estimation of profit @ 8% of WPI. Disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D - CIT(A) restricted the disallowance u/s. 14A to the extent of exempt income earned during the year - HELD THAT:- It is found that this issue was involved in the earlier years as well wherein it was held that the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs. 55,80,775/- on account of disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D to Rs. 5,12,548/- relied upon decision of Jurisdictional High Court as well as tribunal orders. The Ld.CIT(A) has not appreciated the CBDT Circular No.5/2014 dated 11.02.2014. 3. The first ground taken by the Revenue pertains to addition of Rs. 5,08,94,301/- on account of estimation of profit @ 8% of WPI. The brief facts of the case are that return of income for assessment year 2013-14 was filed on 27-11-2024 declaring total income of Rs. 79,10,536/-. The assessee company was engaged in the development of various projects and earning certain amount of development fees. The company had entered into development agreement with other company/society pursuant to which it was entrus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal has examined and discussed the issue in length for the first time in ITA No. 2634/Ahd/2011 and 1875/Ahd/2013 for assessment year 2008-09 and 2009-10 respectively which was decided on 23-01-2019. The Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the assessee was the developer, and the WPI did not belong to it. The assessee was consistently following mercantile system of accounting and receipts in the form of development fees were recognized on completion of project. The Assessing Officer without any basis had construed that the WPI belonged to the assessee. Accordingly, the Tribunal had confirmed the claim of the assessee and the ld. CIT(A) in the current year had followed the order of the Tribunal. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of exempt income earned, following the decision of Apex Court and the Jurisdictional High Court. 7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. It is found that this issue was involved in the earlier years as well wherein it was held that the assessee has sufficient interest free funds in excess of investment made for earning tax free income. In any case, the disallowance u/s. 14A was required to be restricted to the exempt income earned, as held by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. Caraf Builders and Construction Pvt. Ltd. 112 taxmann.com 322. The ld. CIT(A) had rightly restricted the disallowance to the extent of exempt income earned by the assessee following the decision of the Apex Court and the Jurisdictional ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
