WIND WORLD INDIA LIMITEAD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), MUMBAI

The brief facts of the case shows that assessee is a company incorporated in joint collaboration with the German Principal Enercon GmbH holding 56% of shares and Mehra family holding 44% share. Earlier it was known as Enercon India limited Group and is engaged in the business of manufacturing of Wind Mill accessories, parts and also in maintenance of Wind Mill. For the year of consideration, assessee filed return of income on 28th

Meanwhile, assessee filed an application for settlement of cases under Section 243C of the Act on 5th December, 2014 for A.Y. 2007-08 to 2014-15. This petition was rejected under Section 245D (4) of the Act on 30 January 2016 and therefore, the assessment proceedings were

He further corroborated the same with the invoices of the transports and also analysis the consumption of steel and cement and same were consumed much higher than the Bill of Materials (BOM). Thereafter, he corroborated the statement of Mr. Siddhartha Mehra and Mr. Yogesh Mehra and found that the assessee has paid speed money also. The learned Assessing Officer reached at a conclusion that the books of accounts are fabricated creating dummy quotes without actual purchases and delivery of goods. Therefore, he tabulated the year-wise books purchased from A.Ys. 2007-08 to 2013-14 totaling in all to ₹362,25,04,658/-. The Assessing Officer held that assessee has failed to show the genuineness of purchases and therefore, he disallowed ₹22,90,37,426/- and passed an assessment order under Section 153A of the Act. He further made an addition of unaccounted cash expenses of

The assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT (A) challenging the order passed by the learned Assessing Officer and the validity of the assessment order passed under Section 144 of the Act, which was dismissed. The assessee also challenged the error in taking the original assessed income, which was wrongly made by the learned Assessing Officer and rectified by the learned CIT (A). The assessee also challenged the addition on account of bogus purchases. The learned CIT (A) after considering the explanation of the assessee estimated the ratio of bogus purchases to the turnover at 1.04% and upheld the addition of ₹62.76 crores. He further upheld the addition of ₹24,30,000/- on account of speed money to various government agencies. He rectified the amount taken by the learned Assessing Officer of ₹31,32,458/- to ₹24,30,000/-. The assessee also challenged that both the amount of bogus purchases and expenditure on account of speed money both cannot be made and therefore, he deleted the addition of speed money over and above the bogus purchases. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee was allowed partly.

Therefore, the appeals of the assessee are decided on merits of the case as per information available on record.

The learned Departmental Representative vehemently supported the order of the learned Assessing Officer and the learned CIT (A).

We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. Facts stated above are also perused.

The first ground of appeal is against the action of the learned Assessing Officer in passing order under Section 144 of the Act. In paragraph no. 5 of the order of learned CIT (A), it was categorically held that all the submissions produced before the learned Assessing Officer was considered. Further, in response to notice under Section 153A of the Act, the assessee did not care to file even the return of income. Therefore, we find that no force in the ground no.1 of the appeal. Hence, dismiss.

Coming to the ground no. 2 of the appeal with respect to the addition sustained by the learned CIT (A) of ₹22,34,11,367/- as well as the issue of making addition

We find that during the course of search enough evidences were found which are tabulated by the learned Assessing Officer and based on that addition has been made. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is no incriminating material found during the course of search. In the result ground number 3 of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Ground number two of the appeal is with respect to the addition of ₹ 223,411,367 on account of alleged bogus purchases upheld by the learned CIT – A. We find that the learned CIT – A has considered all the explanations furnished by the assessee. He has categorically stated that the assessee had booked purchases from six suppliers identified by the sales tax Department as hawala/bogus dealers. The assessee is also not in possession of the bills and other supporting evidences for purchases to the tune of ₹ 5.92 crores. Therefore, there was no doubt that the assessee has indulged in bogus purchases for all these years. The learned and CIT – A observed that the average ratio of bogus purchases to the turnover is merely 1.04% and therefore the bogus purchases were estimated for assessment year 2007 – 08 to 2009 – 10 at ₹ 60.76 crores. When assessee was confronted with evidences, the key persons, managing director enhanced the

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number 1465/M/2019 for assessment year 2007 – 08 is dismissed.

For assessment year 2010 – 11, both the parties are in appeal before us against the order passed by the Commissioner of income tax appeals – 51, Mumbai dated 26/12/2018.

Grounds in ITA No. 1352/Mum/2019 for A.Y. 10-11 in Revenue’s appeal:-

In ITA number 1466/M/2019, assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-

For this year assessee filed its original return of income on 30/9/2010 declaring a total income of ₹ 802,834,440/–. Subsequently search took place on 14/3/2013, which revealed that the assessee has made purchases from bogus parties of steel and cement, claimed bogus transportation expenditure, incurred unaccounted cash expenses on account of speed money and made payment for purchase of development rights to the related party, which is highly excessive. Consequently, notice u/s 153A was issued on 28/1/2014. Assessee approached the settlement commission, which was subsequently rejected on account of non-true and full disclosure. Therefore, the assessment u/s 153A was made. The learned assessing officer made following additions:-

Assessee approached the learned CIT – A wherein he confirmed the disallowance of estimated addition of ₹ 506,455,949/– on account of alleged bogus purchases and a further addition of ₹ 36,845,487/– a on account of alleged bogus purchases made from is 6 different parties who are bogus suppliers. However the learned CIT – A deleted the addition of ₹ 20,196,432/– made on account of unaccounted cash expenses in the form of speed money by allowing telescoping in respect of bogus purchases. He deleted the disallowance u/s 14 A on account of that that assessee did not earn any exempt income during the year. Further he deleted the disallowance of interest expenditure

Coming to the ground number 1 – 3 of the appeal of the assessee, the learned departmental representative confirmed that they are identical to the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2007 – 08.

On careful consideration of the facts and orders of the lower authorities, we find that the learned CIT – A has confirmed the addition of ₹ 506,455,959 on account of bogus purchases from 41 parties identified at the time of search action and assessee has not been a in a position to provide the requisite documents especially related to transportation and the consumption of the above material. The learned CIT – A has given the similar findings as has been given by him for assessment year 2007 – 08. We have already upheld the addition for that assessment year. Therefore, following our own order in assessee's case for assessment year 2007 – 08 we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT – A in confirmation of the addition of ₹ 506,455,949/– as assessee has failed to show that the material has been purchased with respect to the details of transportation as well as consumption of the material purchased. Accordingly, ground number 2 of the appeal is dismissed.

Ground number 3 is with respect to the addition of bogus purchases to the extent of ₹ 36,845,487/– from 6 different parties being suspicious suppliers, the facts relating to this are also identical to ground number 2 of the appeal of the

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2010 – 11 in ITA number 1466/M/2019 is dismissed.

Now coming to the appeal of the learned that AO for the same assessment year, the ground number 1 relates to the disallowance on account of speed money of Rs 2,0 1,96,432/–. The fact shows that during the course of search action various evidences were found in respect of payment of speed money to various government agencies for clearances/approval amounting to ₹ 245,253,274/– for various years. The statement of general manager was recorded at the time of search action wherein he admitted to the payment of speed money. The managing director also accepted the same. The learned and CIT – A confirmed the addition however he telescope the same in view of the addition confirmed by him on account of bogus purchases for the reason that in answer to question number 135 the managing director of the company has stated that the source of the above speed money paid is on account of bogus purchases. Therefore we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT – A in allowing the telescoping of the above disallowance with respect to the addition confirmed by him on account of bogus purchases. Accordingly, ground numbers 1 – 2 of the appeal of the AO are dismissed.

The ground number three is with respect to the disallowance u/s 14 A of ₹ 105,094,178/–, deleted by the learned CIT – A on the argument that there is no exempt

Ground number 6 is with respect to the disallowance of interest expenditure of ₹ 20,317,621/– made by the learned assessing officer out of interest expenditure under the tax that assessee has advanced interest free loans and advances to its subsidiaries. The learned CIT – A has

In the result, appeal filed by the learned AO in ITA number 1352/M/2019 for assessment year 2010 – 11 is partly allowed.

these are the cross appeals filed by both the parties for assessment year 2011 – 12 against the order passed by the Commissioner of income tax (appeals) – 51, Mumbai dated 26/12/2018.

In ITA number 1467/M/2019 filed by the assessee following grounds of appeal are raised:-

in ITA number 1353/M/2019 the learned assessing officer has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

Briefly stated, the fact shows that assessee filed its return of income on 29/11/2011 declaring a total income of ₹ 1,994,294,530/–. The facts stated in earlier year that assessee approached settlement commission wherein the

During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that assessee has claimed purchases from 21 suppliers where no standard operating procedure normally followed by the assessee in respect of its genuine purchases has not been followed and assessee failed to show the transportation detail for the material purchased as well as its consumption at the various sites. Accordingly, the assessing officer made an addition of ₹ 557,079,690/– treating the said purchases is bogus. The assessee was also found to be having incurred speed money expenditure and accordingly such unaccounted cash expenses of ₹ 33,912,150/– was added. During the year, assessee has claimed expenditure of ₹ 291 crores in purchase of site development rights in the nature of approvals and allotments of windmill project from Vish wind infrastructure LLP. During the course of search, it revealed that the above party did not have any technical knowhow, the technical manpower, or the sophisticated infrastructure in respect of acquisition of the site development rights. On the other hand, all these expertise were available with the assessee. It was also admitted by the managing director that knowhow, manpower, and infrastructure has been provided by the assessee to the above party for the acquisition of site development rights. Assessee has not received any amount for the said services rendered. Even the proceedings before the settlement commission also

Assessee approached the learned CIT – A in appeal. The learned CIT – A confirmed all other additions except the disallowance on account of speed money of ₹ 33,912,150/– granting telescoping to the assessee he deleted the same, he also deleted the disallowance u/s 14 A of the act of ₹ 121,013,188/– as assessee did not on any exempt income. He also deleted the disallowance on account of interest of ₹ 34,358,442/– as assessee was

Coming to the appeal of the learned AO, ground number 1 – 2 of the appeal has already been decided by us in the appeal of the AO for assessment year 2010 – 11 wherein we upheld the action of the learned CIT – A in deleting the separate addition on account of speed money paid because of the reason that assessee has stated that amount earned out of bogus purchases have been used for spending on speed money. Therefore for the similar reasons, in absence of any change in the facts and circumstances of the case, we confirm the action of the learned CIT – A and ground number 1 and 2 of the appeal is dismissed.

Ground number 3 – 6 is identical to ground number 3 – 6 of the appeal of the AO for assessment year 2011 – 12 wherein we have set-aside the whole issue back to the file of the learned assessing officer in view of the amendment in the income tax act by Finance act 2022, for the similar reasons we also set-aside these three grounds back to the file of the AO to decide in accordance with the law. Accordingly, these grounds are allowed.

Ground number seven of the appeal is with respect to the deletion of the interest disallowance amounting to ₹ 34,358,442/–. This is identical to the ground number 7 of the appeal of the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2011 – 12 wherein we have upheld the action of the

Accordingly, appeal of the learned assessing officer is partly allowed.

Now we come to the ground of appeal of appeal filed by the assessee. Ground number 1 is with respect to the assessment-framed u/s 144 of the act. This is identical to ground number 1 of the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011 – 12 wherein we have confirmed the action of the learned assessing officer. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the ground number 1 of the appeal and hence dismissed.

Ground number 3 is with respect to the addition on account of bogus purchases of ₹ 557,079,690 on account of alleged bogus purchases. This ground is identical to ground number 2 – 3 in the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011 – 12. There are no changes in the facts and circumstances of the case. For that year we have already confirmed the action of the learned CIT – A. Accordingly we also confirm the action of the learned CIT – A in confirming the disallowance/addition of ₹ 557,079,690/– on account of alleged bogus purchases accordingly ground number 3 of the appeal is dismissed.

Ground number 4 is with respect to the disallowance of a sum of Rs 291,00,00,000/-on account of purchases of development rights of fully developed when the power site acquired from Vish wind infrastructure LLP[ LLP] . We find that this issue has been considered by the learned CIT – A as per paragraph number 9 of the appeal order. The facts relating to the above addition shows that during the course of search it was found that LLP had hardly carried out any business activities, which showed sale of

Ground number five is with respect to the confirmation of disallowance of ₹ 60 crores u/s 37 (1) of the act. This offer was made by the assessee before the settlement commission. This addition was on account of the provisions of Section 43B of the act since the above sum is not paid before the end of relevant year. During the course of assessment proceedings, also assessee did not object to the same. Before the learned CIT – A also no evidences were produced. There are no evidences that the above sum has been paid even before the due date of filing of the return of income. Therefore, we do not have any other alternative but to confirm the action of the learned CIT – A in confirming the above disallowance of ₹

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number 1467/M/2019 four assessment year 2011 – 12 is dismissed.

These are the cross appeals filed by the both the parties against the order of the learned CIT – A – 51, Mumbai dated 26/12/2018.

ITA number 1468/M/2019 is filed by the assessee raising following grounds of appeal:-

In ITA number 1354/M/2019, the learned AO has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

The learned departmental representative submitted that above all grounds in the appeal of the assessee as well as of the learned AO are covered by appeal of the assessee and AO for assessment year 2011 – 12.

We first deal with the appeal of the assessee. We find that the ground number one of the appeal is identical to ground number one of the appeal of assessment year 2011 – 12. We have already dismissed that ground of appeal for assessment year 2011 – 12 hence, on the similar reasons, we also dismiss ground number one.

Ground number 2 of the appeal is with respect to the confirmation of the addition of bogus purchase of ₹ 803,285,982/–. This ground is similar to ground number three of the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011 – 12. While deciding that appeal, we have already confirmed the action of the learned CIT – A. Therefore, for the similar reasons we also confirmed the action of the learned CIT appeal in confirming the disallowance of the above sum on account of alleged bogus purchases accordingly ground number 2 of the appeal is dismissed.

Ground number three of the appeal is with respect to the confirmation of disallowance of ₹ 390 crores on account of

In the result ITA number 1468/M/2019 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012 – 13 is dismissed.

Now we come to the appeal filed by the learned assessing officer we find that ground number 1 – 2 of the appeal is with respect to the telescoping of disallowance on account of speed money paid with unaccounted income of bogus purchases. This ground is identical to ground number 1 – 2 of the appeal of the AO for assessment year 2011 – 12. We have confirmed the action of the learned CIT – A for that year. Accordingly for the similar reasons we also dismiss ground number one and two and confirmed the action of the learned CIT – A in allowing telescoping of the above disallowance

ground number 4 – 6 of the appeal is with respect to the disallowance u/s 14 A which is similar to the ground number 4 – 5 of the appeal of the AO for assessment year 2011 – 12 which has been set-aside back to the file of the learned assessing officer in view of the amendment u/s 14 A of the act by the finance act 2022. For the similar reasons we also set-aside these grounds of appeal to the

Ground number 7 is with respect to the deletion of the disallowance of interest expenditure in view of the fact that assessee has sufficient availability of interest free funds. This ground is similar to ground number six of the appeal of the AO for assessment year 2011 – 12. We have confirmed the order of the learned CIT – A in deleting the above disallowance. For the similar reasons we also confirmed the order of the learned CIT – A for this year. Accordingly, ground number 7 is dismissed.

Ground number three of the appeal is with respect to the disallowance deleted by the learned CIT – A of ₹ 6,9451,510 u/s 43B of the act. We find that this issue has been set-aside by the learned CIT – A to the file of the learned AO with a direction to examine the nature of the expenditure whether it falls within the ambit of the provisions of Section 43B of the act or not and whether the actual payment of the above sum has been made during the relevant year before allowing the claim of the assessee. We find that the learned CIT – A has given a direction to the AO and there should not be any grievance to the assessing officer against the direction. The learned and CIT – A has not allowed the deduction. In view of this, we do not find any merit in the ground number 3 of the appeal, hence dismissed.

In the result ITA number 1354/M/2019 filed by the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2012 – 13 is partly allowed.

ITA number 1355/M/2019 is filed by the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2013-14 against the order passed by the learned CIT – A dated 26/12/2018.

As per ground number 1 – 2 of the appeal, AO is aggrieved with the direction of the learned CIT – A granting telescoping of the disallowance confirmed of ₹ 153,943,689/– made on account of speed money. We find that identical ground has been raised by the learned assessing officer in earlier years also. There is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case. As for the assessment year 2011 – 12 and 2012 – 13, identical ground has been dismissed, therefore for the similar reasons we dismiss ground number 1 and 2 of the appeal of the AO.

Ground number 3 is with respect to the deletion of disallowance of Rs 4.50 crores u/s 43B of the act. This ground is identical to ground number three of the appeal of the AO for assessment year 2012 – 13 wherein the issue has been set-aside to the file of the learned assessing officer for the purpose of verification. Therefore, according to us the assessing officer cannot be said to be aggrieved by that order. In view of this, we dismiss ground number 3 of the appeal.

Ground number 7 of the appeal is with respect to the deletion of the disallowance of interest expenditure of ₹ 79,399,439/–. The facts and circumstances of the disallowances identical to the ground number 7 of the appeal of the AO for assessment year 2012 – 13. The learned and CIT – capital has deleted the disallowance holding that assessee has sufficient interest free funds available then the amount of advances given interest free to its subsidiary companies. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT – A. In view of this following our own decision for ground number seven in appeal of the AO for assessment year 2012 – 13 we dismiss this ground.

Accordingly ITA number 1355/M/2019 filed by the learned assessing officer is partly allowed.

Coming to appeal of the assessee wherein the first ground is against the action of the learned assessing officer

Ground number 2 is with respect to the disallowance of deduction u/s 80 IA of ₹ 160,761,237/–. This ground is identical to ground number two of the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011 – 12. This ground of appeal has been decided by us confirming the action of the learned CIT – A in disallowing the above deduction as assessee has failed to show that any report in form number 10 CCB is filed. In view of this, for similar reasons we also dismiss ground number 2 of the appeal.

Ground number three is with respect to the confirmation of disallowance of ₹ 473,502,577/– on account of alleged bogus purchases. This ground is identical to ground number 3 of the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011 – 12. We have confirmed the action of the learned CIT – A in confirming the above disallowance for that year. Therefore, for the similar reasons we confirm the order of the learned CIT – A accordingly ground number 3 is dismissed.

Ground number 4 is against the confirmation of the disallowance of ₹ 27.58 crores on account of alleged bogus transportation charges. This ground relates to the bogus purchases. The learned CIT – A has confirmed the same

Ground number 5 of the appeal is with respect to the disallowance of a sum of ₹ 102 crores on account of purchase of development rights. This ground is identical to the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2012 – 13 and 2011 – 12. In those appeals we have confirmed the action of the learned CIT – A. Therefore for the similar reasons we also confirmed the action of the learned CIT – A in confirming the above disallowance. Accordingly, ground number 5 of the appeal is dismissed.

Both these above cross appeals have been filed by the parties against the order of the Commissioner of income tax appeals – 51, Mumbai dated 31/1/2019.

We first take up the appeal of the learned assessing officer in ITA number 1910/M/2019. The AO has raised following grounds of appeal:-

in ITA number 1470/M/2019 the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

We first deal with the appeal of the learned assessing officer. Ground number 2 – 4 of the appeal is with respect to the disallowance deleted by the learned CIT – A u/s 14 A of the act amounting to ₹ 541,007,860/– as the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the year. The identical issue has been dealt with by us in the appeal of the assessee for earlier years where the assessing officer has challenged the action of the learned CIT – A. We have set-aside those grounds back to the file of the learned assessing officer to decide the same in accordance with the law in view of the amendment made

Ground number 5 of the appeal is with respect to the granting of telescoping adjustment on expenditure related to unaccounted cash expenses in the form of speed money against the addition of bogus purchases. This ground is also similar to the ground of appeal decided in the case of the appeal filed by the assessing officer for earlier years. We find that the learned CIT – A while upholding the disallowance of bogus purchases has granted the telescoping as in the statement made by the assessee it has been confirmed that these expenses are incurred out of the money generated out of the bogus purchases. In view of this we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT – A in granting telescoping of the above two different additions. Accordingly, ground number 5 of the appeal is dismissed.

ground number 6 is with respect to the disallowance of interest expenditure of ₹ 53,671,455/– which has been deleted by the learned CIT – A holding that assessee is having more interest free loans and advances compared to amount advanced to the subsidiary companies without charging interest. Identical issue arose in the case of the assessee from assessment year 2011 – 12 to assessment year 2013 – 14 wherein we have upheld the order of the learned CIT – A deleted the about disallowance. Therefore, for the similar reasons, we confirm the order of the

Ground number 1 of the appeal of the AO is against the deletion of disallowance to the extent of ₹ 31,119,000/– on account of liquidated damages of ₹ 84,194,465/–. The facts relating to the above disallowance made by the assessing officer is reproduced in paragraph number 16 of the assessment order. The assessee has claimed liquidated damages amounting to ₹ 84,194,465 in the profit and loss account. The assessee was asked to furnish the details the before the assessing officer assessee could not furnish any detail and therefore the learned assessing officer disallowed the above sum. The matter reached before the learned CIT – A who dealt with this issue in paragraph number 10 of his order. Before the assessing officer, it was submitted that assessee has entered into a memorandum of understanding on 26/2/2013 with one party for supply and commissioning of 20 MW wind power project in Rajasthan for a total contract amount of ₹ 1,037,300,000. As per the agreement, the project was to be commissioned on or before 31/3/2013, however it could not be commissioned within the stipulated time. For this project, that party has availed loan is and paid interest for an aggregate amount of ₹ 53,075,465, which was paid by the assessee. As per the MOU that party raised debit note of ₹ 31,119,000/– being 3% of the contract value towards liquidated damages for the delay in commissioning of the project. Therefore, assessee claimed deduction of the above sum amounting in all to ₹ 84,194,465 on account of liquidated damages. Assessee

On careful consideration of the findings of the lower authorities, it is apparent that assessee has incurred a liability of ₹ 31,119,000/– which is supported by the memorandum of understanding for delay in commissioning of the project. In view of this we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT – A in allowing the above deduction to the assessee. The assessee has challenged the confirmation of disallowance of ₹ 53,075,465/– as per ground number six of the appeal of the assessee. In view of this, we uphold the order of the learned CIT – A in allowing the claim of ₹ 31,119,000 which is supported by the debit note and the clauses of the agreement of memorandum of understanding and confirmation of disallowance of ₹ 5,30,75,465 which is not supported by any agreement. Accordingly ground number one of the

Ground number 7 and 8 of the appeal of the AO as well as ground number 7 and 8 of the appeal of the assessee are with respect to the disallowance of certain expenditure confirmed by the learned CIT – A. The facts relating to the above ground is that assessee has claimed certain expenditure Under the head employee’s benefit, repairs and maintenance, other manufacturing expenses, commission and discount on sales and legal and professional fees as well as security service charges. Before the assessing officer, no further submissions were made and therefore the learned AO made an ad hoc disallowance of 10% of the above aggregate expenditure. Such disallowance was amounting to ₹ 333,689,904/–. The assessee contested before the learned CIT – A the submissions made by the assessee were not considered. The remand report was called for where the assessee only filed copies of the Ledger account of the said expenses and simple copies of the bills and invoices. In rejoinder assessee submitted that its registered office, factory is situated at a different place and records are lying under lockout and no employees are there to take care of. Therefore, it was stated that it is practically impossible to comply with the requirement of the AO. Assessee also stated that regular assessment u/s 143 (3) of assessment year 2008 – 09 has taken in place and no disallowance has been made and in that the head of these expenditure assessee also submitted a comparative chart of expenses to state that there is no abnormal increase in the

This leaves us with some of the grounds in the appeal of the assessee.

Ground number 1 is identical to the ground of appeal of assessee in earlier years wherein we have dismissed the same ground. For the similar reasons we uphold the action of the learned assessing officer in applying the provisions of Section 144 in making the assessment. Accordingly, ground number 1 is dismissed.

Ground number 2 is with respect to the confirmation of disallowance of ₹ 182,785,086/– u/s 43B of the act. The learned CIT – A has dealt with this issue in paragraph number 6 of the appeal. He has decided this issue after obtaining the remand report of the learned assessing Officer and rejoinder to the remand report of the assessee. The issue is 18.27 crores of service tax, which has been paid by the assessee on 18/9/2013 under the protest he held that, assessee, can claim the same as bad debt if the same is not received from the client but it is not allowable u/s 43B of the act. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT – A in making the about disallowance invoking the provisions of Section 43B of the act as it did not satisfy the requisite criteria. In the result ground number 2 of the appeal is dismissed.

Ground number 3 is with respect to the not allowing set of brought forward losses of ₹ 336,508,609. This amount is

Ground number 4 is with respect to the disallowance of deduction u/s 80 IA amounting to ₹ 146,249,255/-we find that identical issue arose in the case of the assessee in earlier assessment year where the assessee has not furnished form number 10CCB. On this identical ground, we have already confirmed disallowance of deduction u/s 80 IA in earlier years. There is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case and therefore we confirm the action of the learned CIT – A – ground number 4 of the appeal.

Ground number 5 of the appeal is against the disallowance of the bad debts amounting to ₹ 2,007,599/– this disallowance was confirmed by the learned CIT – A for the reason that before the assessing officer, in the remand proceedings, before the learned CIT – A assessee did not produce any of the details. In view of this, we do not have any reason to deviate from the orders of the lower authorities. Accordingly, ground number 5 of the appeal is dismissed.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number 1470/M/2019 for assessment year 2014 – 15 is dismissed.