DIU RESORTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(1)(3), MUMBAI

आदेश / O R D E R

by placing reliance upon the decision in Toyo Engineering India Ltd. vs JCIT(2006) 100 TTJ (Mum.) 373, ITO vs Shri Anupallavi Finance and Investment Ltd. (2011) 131 ITD 205 (Chennai) and ITO vs Amee Hosang Mistry (2014)

29. ITR (Trib.) 397 (Mumbai). On the other hand, the ld. DR, Shri A.K.Dhondial, defended the conclusion arrived at in the impugned order by contending that the assessee was to deduct TDS which has not been deducted. In reply, the ld. counsel for the assessee, explained that the assessee is following project completion method and offered the full amount in the year of completion. My attention was invited to pages 26 to 39 of the paper book.

2.1. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee filed its return declaring income of Rs.67,530/- which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act). On examination of the details, filed by the assessee, it was observed that a contract was awarded to the assessee to carry out construction work of residential complex for a total consideration of Rs.27 crores. For executing the project, Indian Steel Corporation Ltd. (in short ISCL) paid Rs.11,93,87,755/- and made TDS of Rs.23,87,755/- on the same. The contract was entered into March, 2011. The claim of credit for TDS was disallowed by the assessee. On appeal, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) affirmed the same. The assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. Under these facts, the claim of the assesse is that since the assessee is following project completion method for returning the income credit of the TDS has to be given in that assessment year when the income was returned in the subsequent year for which reliance was placed upon the decision in broadly in Toyo Engineering India Ltd. vs ACIT (supra) along with other cases. I find that in this case, the Bench vide order dated 13th September, 2005, by following the decision in Transmission Corporation of AP Ltd and Ors. vs CIT (1999) 239 ITR 587 (SC), Bhagwan Das Jain vs UOI 128 ITR 315 (SC) and CIT vs G. R. Karthikeyan (1993) 201 ITR 866 (SC) has concluded that credit of TDS has to be given in the relevant previous year, even though the assessee follows project completion method of accounting, thus, TDS, during financial year relevant to assessment year 1999-2000 had to be given credit for in that assessment year even though income was returned in sub-sequent assessment year 2000-01. No contrary decision was brought to my notice by the Revenue. It is also noted that the Revenue has not doubted the method of accounting and full amount was offered in the year of completion. It is noted (page-26 of the paper book) that original validity of work order was 03/01/2013 which was extended till 31/03/2015 and the work has been illustrated therein. From page-33 of the paper book, the statement of profit & loss account year ending 31/03/2015 has been made available, wherein, sales have been reflected to the tune of Rs.96,927,215/-. There is no loss to the Revenue and full amount has been offered on completion of the project, thus, following the aforesaid decisions and more specifically Toyo Engineering India Ltd. vs JCIT(supra), the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Finally, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

This order was pronounced in the open Court in the presence of ld. representative of both sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 06/01/2016.

Sd/- (Joginder Singh) �या�यक सद�य / JUDICIAL MEMBER मुंबई Mumbai; �दनांक Dated : 06/01/2016 f{x~{tÜ? P.S /�नजी स�चव आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयु�त(अपील) / The CIT, Mumbai. 4. आयकर आयु�त / CIT(A)- , Mumbai 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स�या�पत ��त //True Copy//