Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5.11. Similarly, in respect of other incomes in the form of vatav, site misc. income were only directed to be reduced by the AO and other incomes to the tune of Rs.2,30,53,1887- in respect of City project, Rs.6,75,6127- in respect of Island Project and Rs.l,20,94,546/- in respect of Park project not allowed to be reduced as other income from the capita! WIP. This was also found incorrect. It is worth here to mention that, the appellant himself has shown the other income of all these projects totalling to Rs. 4,06,31,088/- in the P & L Account. Since in these projects, the other income has been credited in the P & L Account separately then the closing WIP to that extent was to be reduced otherwise, it would cause the double taxation of the similar amount. It is also noted that in the project namely; Island, the AO has reduced the other income at Rs.6,75,612/- while as per its own stand the same could have been reduced only by Rs.33,545/-. So, there was no basis of the reduction of the . amount of Rs.6,75,612/- by the AO.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 5.14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the rejection of books of accounts and the addition made by the AO is found untenable. Moreover, the similar method for working of the closing ITA no.2315/AHD/2016 With Asstt. Year 2012-13 WIP has been adopted by the appellant in the preceding years also as adopted in the year under consideration. It is worth here to mention that during the year, the appellant had the seven projects in hand of which details are noted at Page No. 5 of the assessment order. But he has objected the valuation of the closing WIP in respect of only three projects namely; City, Island, Park, bul accepted the same method of working of closing WIP in respect of other projects namely; ICB Park, Bhavya, Bangalore - 2 and Flora for which no reasons have been given by the AO for not to make any revised closing WIP value in the similar lines as done in the other three projects. Thus the AO himself has taken the double standard for working out the closing WIP which is no sustainable. Thus, the closing WIP worked out by the AO in respect of three namely, City Island and Park is found not correct in view of the discussion made in the preceding pars and therefore, the addition made in this regard is deleted.