SHREEDHAM CONSTRUCTORS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 13(2)(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1198/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 March 2021AY 2013-142 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that identical issues in earlier assessment years for the same assessee were remitted to the Assessing Officer. Following this precedent, the Tribunal decided to remit the current issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order confirming the Assessing Officer's reduction from work-in-progress. This reduction was based on rent paid to tenants, invoking Section 37(1). The assessee argued for a similar treatment as in previous assessment years.

What were the issues?

Whether rent paid to tenants can be considered a deductible expense for work-in-progress. The applicability of Section 37(1) in this context.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 37(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” Bench, Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal
For Respondent: Shri T.S. Khalsa
Hearing: 09.03.2021Pronounced: 09.03.2021

O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya (AM) :-

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned CIT(A) dated 29.12.2017 and pertains to A.Y. 2013-14.

2.

The issue raised in ground No. 1 as under :-

On the facts and circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the reduction from work-in-progress made by the Assessing Officer amounting to Rs. 3,36,000/- being rent paid to tenants by invoking provisions of section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

3.

At the outset, learned Counsel of the assessee contended that identical issue for A.Y. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2012-13 in assessee’s own case by combined order dated 14.11.2017 has been remitted by the ITAT to the file of the Assessing Officer to consider the same afresh. Hence, learned counsel pleaded that this issue may also be remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer.

2 M/s. Shreedham Constructions Pvt. Ltd.

4.

We have heard both the counsel and perused the records. We find that the ITAT in assessee’s own case in earlier years has remitted similar issue to the file of the Assessing Officer. Hence, following the aforesaid precedent, we deem it appropriate to remit this issue also to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall decide the issue in terms of the ITAT direction as above.

5.

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Pronounced in the open court on 9.3.2021.

More judgments on Section 37(1)

All 6,995 judgments and leading authorities on Section 37(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →