In the case of En-Vision Enviro Engineers (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT, it was held that deduction u/s 80IA(4) cannot be disallowed, merely on the ground that the assessee must be owner of the infrastructure facilities and the assess should be a developer and not contractor.
Sec. 80-IB(10) of the Act thus provides for deductions to an undertaking engaged in the business of developing and constructing housing projects under certain circumstances noted above. It does not provide that the land must be owned by the assessee seeking such deductions
‘On money’ received by the assessee did not have the character of income but was only an advance like the one received through cheque. Both will become part of the sale consideration to the assessee simultaneously on either handing over the possession of the flats or on execution of transfer deed whichever happens earlier.
As far as the invocation of extended period is concerned tribunal observed that improper credit taken which was detected by the department officers only. At no stage of appellant approached the department for any guidance that there was any confusion in admissibility of credit on the impugned services.
For the purpose of levy, assets are classified as two categories one as productive and other as non productive. Under the provisions of amended Act, tax is levied only on non productive assets such as residential house, urban land, jewellery, bullion, motor car etc. In the case in hand, industrial plots are being utilized as productive assets.
We find that it is not in dispute that the undisclosed bank account which was detected by the department contains transfer entries to other 5 undisclosed bank accounts maintained by the assessee. In view of this fact the Tribunal concluded that the subsequent disclosure of the assessee of existence of the said 5 bank accounts cannot be held as voluntary.
The Revenue has not brought any positive material on record to show that the assessee actually incurred any expenses in relation to earning of exempt income. In our considered view, before making disallowance under section 14A, it was imperative on the part of the Revenue
Simply because outstanding liability at the end of the year is comparatively higher, considering the amount of expenditure incurred during the year, does not empower the AO to disallow the actual outstanding liability unless it is found that the liability shown was not genuine.
In our considered view, even if the assessee failed to put-in appearance, it is the duty of the CIT(A) to dispose of the appeal on merit on the basis of material available on record. Our view finds support from the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of VODAFONE ESSAR LTD Vs. DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL–II & Ors. in W.P.(C) 7028/2010 order dated 02.12.2010.
It was incumbent upon the Assessing Officer to examine the books of accounts with the related evidences and documents and thereafter should have arrived at a decision. Without verification of books of accounts produced before him and bringing any material on record, the Assessing Officer was not justified in rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee as an afterthought.
