Loading judgment…

M V Omni Projects (India)… vs DCIT | ITAT Ahmedabad 2019 | BharatTax

M V OMNI PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

ITA 2001/AHD/2017Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 February 2019AY 2014-154 pages

No AI summary yet for this case.

Cases cited in this judgment

Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn
41 Taxmann.com 100 · 2014 · HC
540 citing

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH

Before: Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Jignesh P. Parikh, A.R

For Respondent: Ms. Aparna Agrawal, Sr. D.R, Shri Jignesh P. Parikh, A.R

आदेश/ORDER PER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-

This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2014-15, arises from order of the CIT(A)-2, Ahmedabad dated 03-07-2017, in proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”.

I.T.A No. 2001/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2014-15 Page No 2 M.V. Omni Projects (India) Ltd vs. DCIT

2.

The assessee has filed two grounds of appeal against the order of ld. CIT(A). The other ground nos. 3, 4 & 5 of appeal are of general nature which do not require any adjudication.

3.

During the course of appellate proceedings before us the ld. counsel has submitted before us that ground no. 1 in respect of disallowance of deduction of Rs. 3,29,935/- by invoking provision of section 36(1)(va) in respect of employee’s contribution to provident fund, ESIC has been decided against the assessee in view of the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 41 taxman.com 100 (Guj).

4.

Regarding second ground of appeal of disallowance of deduction u/s. 80IA(4) to the amount of Rs. 7,75,30,680/- the ld. counsel admitted that this issue has also been covered against the assessee by the decision of Co- ordinate Bench of the ITAT in the case of the assessee itself. The ld. counsel has also submitted a copy of decision of Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT vide ITA No. 1146/Ahd/2016 M.V Omni Projects Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT dated 05-06-2018.

deposited late but before filing return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act and (ii) confirming the disallowances of the legitimate claim of deduction of Rs.3,80,61,802/- u/s.80IA(4) of the Act. 3. When the matter was called for hearing, the Ld.AR for the assessee with all his fairness submitted before us that the first issue relating to the contribution of Employees’ PF has been decided against the assessee in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 41 taxmann.com 100 (Guj.) by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court on the premise that the deposit towards Employees’ PF contribution has been made after the dates prescribed under the relevant Act. The Ld.DR supports the orders passed by the authorities below. Taking into consideration of the above facts, we decline to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) in parity with the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation. The second issue relating to the disallowance of the claim of deduction of Rs.3,80,61,802/- u/s.80IA(4) of the Act is also covered in assessee’s own case for AY 2008-09 against the assessee, as fairly submitted by the Ld.AR at the time of the hearing at the instant appeal. A copy of the said order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in ITA No.118/Ahd/2012 for AY 2008-09 dated 28.10.2015 has also been handed over to us by the Ld.AR. The relevant portion whereof is narrated hereinbelow:- “5.1. We have heard both the parties and gone though the material available on record. So far as ground No.1 regarding disallowance of the claim of deduction u/s.80IA(4) of the Act is concerned, the similar ground was raised in ITA No.1083/Ahd/2010 for AY 2006-07 (in assessee’s own case) and the Tribunal, vide its order dated 15/06/2012 in para-7, has decided this issue by observing as under:- “7. We have perused the orders of authorities below and arguments from both the side. The assessee is a work contractor of the Railway department who has executed the contract for supply of materials trenching, laying, testing, commissioning of 4 quad cables, installation and commissioning of gate, telephones and emergency posts, etc. for the work of provision of 4 quad cable in Rajkot-Varaval Section of Rajkot/Bhavnagar Divisions of Western Railways. The nature of the contract is civil which had been assigned by the Railway Department in part of already rail laid and no new railway line or telecommunication system has been executed by the assessee. Thus, the ld.CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the addition of the AO. We do not find any reason to revert the order of the CIT(A). Accordingly, the order of CIT(A) is confirmed and the assessee’s appeal is dismissed.” 5.2. Therefore, respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the Coordinate Bench, taking a consistent view, for the same reasoning, this ground of assessee’s appeal is rejected.” 4. The Ld.DR supports the orders passed by the authorities below. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the relevant materials available on record. We find that the facts are identical to the facts available in the instant case. We, therefore, respectfully following the said decision passed by the Co-ordinate Bench, taking a consistent view on the basis of the reasons assigned therein reject the particular issue raised by the assessee.”