ACIT, Jaipur V. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT & CONSTRUCTION CORP. LTD., Jaipur

ITA 123/JPR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2182 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 06-02-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NINA JAIF
• Assessee Lawyers: P C PARWAL CA DHK
• Section: 43B; 143(3)

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S, JAIPUR JH HKKXPUN] YS[KK LNL; ,OA JH DQY HKKJR] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 123/JP/2017 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. M/S RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT & CONSTRUCTION CORP. LTD., SETU BHAWAN, JHALANA DOONGRI, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. AABCR 9650 F VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SMT. NINA JAIF ( ADDL.CIT) FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.C.PARWAL (CA) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 05.04.2017. ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10 /04/2017. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINS T THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (APPEALS)-2, JAIPUR DATED 30.11.2016 PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2012-13. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWINGS GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 1 WHETHER ONE THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C AE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING CONTRIBUTION OF RS. 20,00,000/- TO STATE RENEWAL FUND AS AN ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE THOUGH IT IS NOT AN ACTUAL EXPENDITURE. 2. WHERE ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO BY DISALLOWING RS. 1,97,491/- OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES . 3. WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE O F DEDUCTION U/S 80IA TO RS. 9.24 LACS AGAINST RS. 3,84,50,924/-. 4. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS . 6,04,590/- MADE BY THE AO FOR DEPOSITING THE EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION T O PF BEYOND THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT PROVIDED IN RESPECTIVE ACTS. 2 ITA NO. 123/JP/2017 M/S RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT & CONSTRUCTION CORP. 5. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT EMPLOYEES CON TRIBUTION TO PF & ESI ARE GOVERNED BY THE PROVISION OF SECTION 43B AND NO T BY SECTION 36(1) (VA) R.W.S. 2(24) (X) OF THE IT ACT. 6. THE APPELLANT CRAVES ITS RIGHTS TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER ANY OF THE GROUNDS ON OR BEFORE THE HEARING. 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS ARE THAT THE CASE OF TH E ASSESSEE WAS PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTIO N 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WAS FRAMED VIDE ORDER DATED 31 ST JANUARY 2015, WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSEMENT, THE A SSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF CONTRIBUTION TO STATE RENEWAL FUNDS OF RS. 20,00,000/-,PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES OF RS. 1,97,491/- AND DELAY IN DEPOSITS IN PROVIDENT FUND OF RS. 6,04,590/-. THE ASSESSING OFF ICER ALSO RESTRICTED THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF RS. 36,32,87,646/-. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT (A), WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS, ALLOWED THE APPEAL. THEREBY, THE LD. CIT (A) DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER IN RESPECT OF CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS STATE RENEWAL FUND, PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES A ND DELAY IN DEPOSIT OF PF CONTRIBUTION. HOWEVER LD. CIT(A) RESTRICTED THE DI SALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IA TO RS. 9.24 LAKHS AGAINST RS. 3,84,50,924/-. AGAIN ST THIS, THE REVENUE HAS PREFERRED THE PRESENT APPEAL. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE ISSUES ARE COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS FACT IS NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES. 4. GROUND NO. 1, IS AGAINST DELETION OF DISALLOWANC E OF RS. 20 LAKHS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF CONTRIBUTION TO STATE RENEWAL FUNDS. WE FIND THAT THE SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE JUDGM ENT OF THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN 3 ITA NO. 123/JP/2017 M/S RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT & CONSTRUCTION CORP. HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RAJASTHA N STATE SEEDS CORPORATION LTD. 386 ITR 267. RESPECTIVELY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT O F THE HIGH COURT, WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE INTO THE ORDER OF THE LD. C IT (A), THEREFORE, SAME IS HEREBY AFFIRMED. THEREFORE, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REV ENUE IS DISMISSED. 5. GROUND NO. 2 IS AGAINST DELETION OF ADDITION MAD E ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES OF RS. 1,97,491/-. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT, THIS ISSUE IS ALSO COVERED . THE LD. DR CONCEDED THE FACTS, HOWEVER, HE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER. 5.1 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED TH E MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CA SE IN ITA NO. 558/JP/2015, DECIDED THE ISSUE BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- 6.2 WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED TH E MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LD. CIT(A) IN PARA 4.3 OF HIS ORDER HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE AS UNDER:- 4.3 I HAVE PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT HA S GIVEN A BREAK-UP OF THE EXPENDITURE DEBITED UNDER THE HEAD PRIOR EXP ENSE. AS PER THIS BREAK-UP, AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1,77,09,136/- WITH RESPE CT TO THE HEAD OFFICE AND AN AMOUNT OF RS. 55,28,017/- WITH RESPEC T TO THE JODHPUR UNIT ARE REVERSAL OF ENTRIES OF INCOME, WRONGLY MAD E IN THE PRECEDING YEARS. WITH RESPECT TO THE HEAD OFFICE, AN AMOUNT OF RS. 96,08,000/- PERTAINS TO REVERSAL OF DOUBLE INCOME BOOKED IN F.Y . 2002-03 WITH RESPECT TO MAINTENANCE CHARGES. FURTHER AN AMOUNT OF RS. 2,94,25,000/- WITH RESPECT TO THE HEAD OFFICE PERTA INS TO WRONG ENTRY OF INTEREST INCOME IN F.Y. 2002-03 & 2003-04 WITH R ESPECT TO TOLL PROJECTS ON CAPITAL DEPLOYED BY THE APPELLANT. THE ABOVE CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT WITH RESPECT TO REVERSAL OF INCOME WRONGLY DECLARED IN EARLIER YEARS, IS ACCEPTABLE. EXPENDITURE OF RS. 7 6,629/- WITH RESPECT TO GURGAON AND EXPENDITURE OF RS. 15,000/- WITH RES PECT TO THE MECHANICAL UNIT ARE IN THE NATURE OF PRIOR PERIOD E XPENSES WHICH COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT BY THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A)-II, JAIPUR FOR A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11. FOLLOWING THE A BOVE ORDERS, THIS PRIOR PERIOD EXPENDITURE IS ALLOWABLE. WITH RESPEC T TO THE EXPENDITURE OF RS. 16,33,880/- PERTAINING TO THE BIKANER UNIT, THIS EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED ON SHIFTING OF PLAN IN AN EARLIER YEA R, WHICH WAS 4 ITA NO. 123/JP/2017 M/S RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT & CONSTRUCTION CORP. ORIGINALLY RECOVERABLE FROM PWD BUT SINCE THE WORK GOT WITHDRAWN AND THE AMOUNT COULD NOT BE RECOVERED FROM PWD, THIS AM OUNT HAS BEEN DEBITED IN THIS YEARS. THIS CONTENTION OF THE APPE LLANT IS ACCEPTABLE. IN VIEW, OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ON ACCOUNT OF THE ABOVE PRIOR PE RIOD EXPENSES TO THE TUNE OF RS. 1,94,34,645/- IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED . WITH RESPECT TO THE AMOUNT OF RS. 55,28,017/- PERTA INING TO THE JODHPUR UNIT, WITH RESPECT TO SHUTTERING MATERIAL, THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT DOES NOT MATCH THE SUPPO RTING ORDER SHEET ENTRIES SUBMITTED. THEREFORE, THE NATURE OF EXPEND ITURE IS NOT ASCERTAINABLE AND THEREFORE THIS EXPENDITURE CANNOT BE ALLOWED. THIS DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS UPHEL D. THIS GROUND IS PARTLY ALLOWED. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING OF FACT THAT WIT H RESPECT TO THE HEAD OFFICE AN AMOUNT OF RS. 96,08,000/- PERTAINS TO REV ERSAL OF DOUBLE INCOME BOOKED IN F.Y. 2002-03 WITH RESPECT TO MAINT ENANCE CHARGES. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN FURTHER FINDING OF FACT TH AT AN AMOUNT OF RS. 2,94,25,000/- WITH RESPECT TO THE HEAD OFFICER PERT AINS TO WRONG ENTRY OF INTEREST INCOME IN FY 2002-03 & 2003-04 WITH RES PECT TO TOLL PROJECT ON CAPITAL DEPLOYED BY THE APPELLANT. THIS FINDING OF FAT IS NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE LD. D/R BY PLACING ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE LD. CIT(A ) THAT REVERSAL OF INCOME WRONGLY DECLARED IN EARLIER YEARS, IS ALLOWA BLE. HENCE, THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. THEREFORE, TAKING A CONSISTENT VIEW, THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 6. GROUND NO. 3, IS AGAINST RESTRICTING THE DISALLO WANCE OF U/S 80IA OF RS. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUB MITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS A S MADE IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES IS CONCEDED THE FA CTS, HOWEVER HE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6.1 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED TH E MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN ASSE SSEES OWN CASE IN PERTAINING TO 5 ITA NO. 123/JP/2017 M/S RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT & CONSTRUCTION CORP. THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 IN ITA NO. 558/JP/2016, DECIDED THE ISSUE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 8.2 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITI ES BELOW. THE AO OBSERVED THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE COMPANY HAS CLAIMED ESTABLISHMENT EXPENSES UNDER THE HEAD PAYMENT TO A ND PROVISION FOR EMPLOYEES AS PER SCHEDULE I AT RS. 32,68,44,701/ - AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES AT RS. 6,05,47,431/- AS PER SCHEDULE J ANNEXED TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. TOTAL OF THESE EXPENSES COMES TO RS. 38,73,92,132/-. THE AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT NONE OF THE EXPENSES WERE CHA RGED TOWARDS INCOME DISCLOSED FROM VARIOUS TOLL ROAD PROJECTS ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT. HE OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS CLA IMED TOTAL 8 TOLL ROAD/BRIDGE PROJECTS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80I A OF THE ACT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 80IA(4)(I) OF THE ACT FOR DEVELO PING, OPERATING AND MAINTAINING OF INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY I.E. ROAD/BR IDGE. THESE 8 PROJECTS ARE : (I) BIKANER BYPASS, (II) HANUMANGARH-SURATGARH ROAD , (III) HANUMANGARH- SHRIGANGANAGAR ROAD, (IV) MASSI BRIDGE, (V) CHALA NEEMA KA THANA-KOTPUTLI ROAD, (VI) CHOMU-AJITGARH SHAHPURA ROAD, (VII) CHAL A NEEM KA THANA- KOTPUTLI ROAD (IMPROVEMENT) (VIII) MANGALWAR NIMBAH ERA ROAD. OUT OF THESE, TWO PROJECTS BIKANER BYPASS & CHOMU- AJITGAR H-SHAHPURA ROAD HAVE INCURRED LOSSES. ON BALANCE 6 PROJECTS ASSESSEE HA S CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT TO THE TUNE OF RS. 8,20,34,909/-. AS THE ESTABLISHMENT AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE WERE UTILIZED FOR THE ENTIRE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OF THE COMPANY WHICH INCLUDES ROAD & BRIDGE PROJECTS; AS S UCH THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SHOW CAUSE AND EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE ESTAB LISHMENT AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE OF RS. 38,73,92,132/- SHOULD NOT BE ALLOCATE PROPORTIONATELY TO ROAD/BRIDGE PROJECTS IN PROPORTI ON TO THEIR INCOME OF RS. 23,00,24,830/- WITH TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 64,78,66,50 0/- THE ASSESSEE, IN RESPONSE TO THIS QUERY, MADE A DETAILED SUBMISSION. HOWEVER, THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT FOUND ACCEPTAB LE BY THE AO. THE AO, THEREFORE, BY RELYING ON THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IA(5) ALLOCATED THE DIRECT EXPENSES TOWARDS ELIGIBLE UNITS AS WELL. THE AO FU RTHER OBSERVED THAT IT IS CLEAR THAT MANY EXPENSES OF COMMON NATURE I.E. HEAD OFFICE AND OTHER DAY- TO-DAY MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION EXPENSES HAVE NOT BEEN APPORTIONED AMONGST THE UNIT CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS CONSIDERED ONLY DIRECT OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE EX PENSES FOR WORKING OUT THE PROFITS OF ROAD AND BRIDGE PROJECT FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 80IA, AS IF THESE PROJECTS WERE AUTOMATICALLY SET UP AND RUNNIN G WITHOUT ANY STRATEGIC PLANNING, MANAGEMENT, DIRECTIONS, SUPERVISION, MARK ETING SUPPORT, REGULAR CONTRACT AWARDING, WORKS TENDERING, CONTROL ETC. BY THE HEAD OFFICE/BRANCH OFFICES. THE ADMINISTRATIVE, HEAD OFFICE AND OTHER EXPENSES HAVE A DIRECT NEXUS WITH THE RUNNING OF ROAD/BRIDGE PROJECTS OF T HE ASSESSEE SITUATED AT VARIOUS PLACES AND, THEREFORE, THE SAME ARE DEDUCTI BLE ON PROPORTIONATE BASIS IN COMPUTING THE PROFITS AND GAINS FROM THE ELIGIBL E BUSINESS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SEC. 80IA OF THE ACT. THEREF ORE, THE AO OBSERVED THAT A 6 ITA NO. 123/JP/2017 M/S RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT & CONSTRUCTION CORP. SUM OF RS. 13,75,43,459/- IS REQUIRED TO BE APPORTI ONED TO 80IA UNITS, ACCORDINGLY THIS WILL BE DEDUCTED FOR THE PURPOSE O F WORKING OUT DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT. THUS THE AO REDUCED THE ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION ACCORDINGLY. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDE RING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO RS. 6,98,9 3,301/- AGAINST RS. 8,20,34,909/-. THE LD. CIT (A) BY DOING SO HAS OBS ERVED AS UNDER:- 5.5. THE APPELLANT HAS STATED THAT WHILE APPORTIO NING THE EXPENDITURE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS WRONGLY TAKE N THE TOTAL TURNOVER AS RS. 64,78,66,570/- WHEREAS THE CORRECT TURNOVER IS RS. 4,38,13,34,652/-, REFLECTED IN THE INNER COLUMN OF SCHEDULE-G OF THE FINAL ACCOUNTS RELATING TO OPERATING RECEIPTS. IF THE INNER COLUMN OF SCHEDULE-G PERTAINING TO OPERATING RECEIPTS IS TOTA LED, THE GROSS TURNOVER AMOUNTS TO RS. 69,89,85,491/- AS AGAINST R S. 4,38,13,34,652/- CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. 5.6. THE APPELLANT HAS STATED THAT THE WORK OF BOT PROJECTS IS HANDLED BY ONLY FIVE DIVISIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND THE REM AINING 26 DIVISIONS DO NOT UNDERTAKE ANY WORK RELATING TO BOT PROJECTS. TH EREFORE, PAYMENT TO AND PROVISION FOR EMPLOYEES OF THESE FIVE DIVISI ONS AND THE HEAD OFFICE SHOULD ONLY BE TAKEN. THIS CONTENTIONS OF T HE APPELLANT IS CORRECT AND THIS EXPENDITURE RELATABLE TO BOT PROJE CTS IS TAKEN AS RS. 16,98,40,588/-. 5.7. THE APPELLANT HAS STATED THAT ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES INCURRED AT THE HEAD OFFICE OF RS. 6,05,47,731/- DO NOT RELATED TO BOT PROJECTS. LOOKING TO THE NATURE OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES, T HIS CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND CANNOT BE AC CEPTED. THE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES WHICH NEED TO BE APPORTIONE D TO THE BOT PROJECTS IS RS. 6,05,47,731/- - RS. 1,80,00,500/- = RS. 4,25,46,931/- (EXPENDITURE IS RS. 1,80,00,500/- HAS BEEN DISALLOW ED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME). THEREFORE, THE TOTA L EXPENDITURE WHICH NEEDS TO BE APPORTIONED TO THE BOT PROJECTS IS RS. 21,23,87,519/- (RS. 16,98,40,588 + RS. 4,25,46,931/-). 5.8. IN THIS WAY, DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 80IA(4 ) WILL BE COMPUTED AS UNDER:- RS. 21,23,87,519 X RS. 23,00,24,830/ RS. 69,89,85,4 91= RS. 6,98,93,301/-. THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 80IA OF RS. 8,20,34,909/- MAD E BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS RESTRICTED TO THE ABOVE AMOUNT OF RS. 6, 98,93,301/-. GROUND 4.1 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. THE ASSESSEE HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE TAKEN INCORRECT FIGURE OF TURNOVER. ANOTHER CONTENTION O F THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE AMOUNT RELATED TO HEAD OFFICE IS ALREADY APPORTIONE D AND, THEREFORE, THERE 7 ITA NO. 123/JP/2017 M/S RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT & CONSTRUCTION CORP. WAS NO NEED FOR APPORTIONMENT OF THE SAME. WE FIND MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, TH E GROUND RAISED IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 7. GROUND NO. 4 AND 5 ARE AGAINST DELETION OF DISAL LOWANCE OF RS. 6,04,590/- MADE EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF DEPOSITING THE EMPLO YEES CONTRIBUTION BEYOND THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E HAS NO MORE RES INTEGRA. THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONA L HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR (2014) 99 DTR 131 (RAJ.) AND ALSO IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. 98 DTR 105 (RAJ.). THE LD. DR CONCEDED THE FACT, THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAV OUR OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, GROUND NOS. 4 AND 5 ARE DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO. 123/JP/2017 IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON MONDAY, THE 10 TH DAY OF APRIL 2017. SD/- SD/- ( HKKXPUN ( DQY HKKJR ) ( BHAGCHAND) ( KUL BHARAT ) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER JAIPUR DATED:- 10/04/2017. POOJA/ VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT- ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR. 2. THE RESPONDENT M/S RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD DEVELO PMENT & CONSTRUCTION CORP. LTD. JAIPUR. 3. THE CIT(A). 4. THE CIT, 5. THE DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. GUARD FILE (ITA NO. ITA NO. 123/JP/2017 ) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR 8 ITA NO. 123/JP/2017 M/S RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT & CONSTRUCTION CORP.