Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.14 seconds)

Shrenuj Gems & Jewellery Ltd, Mumbai vs Ito 8(3)(1), Mumbai on 16 November, 2016

6. Coming to the issue of disallowance of Rs.1,03,000 made by the A.O. under section 40(a)(ia) in AY 2011-12, it was the contention of the assessee that these amounts were compensations paid in respect of demolition of structures, trees and crops which were ready for harvesting, while laying the infrastructure pipelines as part of the project. The provisions of TDS are not applicable for a such payments made for compensation and expenditure is incurred towards commercial expediency. Ld. CIT(A) while not agreeing with the contention of the assessee on the disallowance, however accepted the alternate contention that the amount disallowed in the business computation would be eligible for deduction under section 80IA, following the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gem Plus Jewellery vs. CIT 330 ITR 175 and the decision of the Hyderabad Bench of ITAT in the case of M/s. Koya and Company Construction P. Ltd., Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad (ITA.Nos.221/Hyd/2009 dated 22.03.2012). As noted above, Assessee is contesting disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) whereas Revenue is contesting the direction of the CIT in allowing proportionate deduction under section 80IA.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 23 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Monter.Com (India) (P) Ltd.,, ... vs Acit, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad on 31 March, 2017

6. Coming to the issue of disallowance of Rs.1,03,000 made by the A.O. under section 40(a)(ia) in AY 2011-12, it was the contention of the assessee that these amounts were compensations paid in respect of demolition of structures, trees and crops which were ready for harvesting, while laying the infrastructure pipelines as part of the project. The provisions of TDS are not applicable for a such payments made for compensation and expenditure is incurred towards commercial expediency. Ld. CIT(A) while not agreeing with the contention of the assessee on the disallowance, however accepted the alternate contention that the amount disallowed in the business computation would be eligible for deduction under section 80IA, following the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gem Plus Jewellery vs. CIT 330 ITR 175 and the decision of the Hyderabad Bench of ITAT in the case of M/s. Koya and Company Construction P. Ltd., Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad (ITA.Nos.221/Hyd/2009 dated 22.03.2012). As noted above, Assessee is contesting disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) whereas Revenue is contesting the direction of the CIT in allowing proportionate deduction under section 80IA.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 9 - Cited by 27 - Full Document
1