ACIT, CHENNAI V. M/s. Mahindra World City Developers Ltd., CHENNAI

ITA 2079/CHNY/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7446 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-03-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 19-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: M VISWANATHANCA
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE DR. O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.2079(MDS)/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE IV(1), CHENNAI. VS. M/S. MAHINDRA WORLD CITY DEVELOPERS LTD., MAHINDRA TOWERS, GROUND FLOOR, 17/18, PATTULOUS ROAD, CHENNAI-600 002. PAN AAACM6904A. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SHAJI P JACOB, IRS, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX. RESPONDENT BY: SHRI M.VISWANATHAN,C.A. DATE OF HEARING : 1 ST MARCH, 2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 1 ST MARCH, 2012 O R D E R PER DR.O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT: THIS APPEAL FILED BY REVENUE RELATES TO THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND IT IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER O F THE - - ITA NO.2079 OF 2011 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS)-V AT CHENNAI, D ATED 30-9-2011. THE APPEAL ARISES OUT OF THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE READ AS BELOW :- 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A)HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ACCEPT THE COST OF LAND AND EXPENSES THEREOF AS PER AUDITED THE ACCOUNTS. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT TH E EXPENSES HAVE BEEN DISPROPORTIONATELY BOOKED BETWEEN SEZ AND NON SEZ CATEGORIES. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED SEPARATE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR SEZ AND NON SEZ AND HENCE ITS STAND THAT THE EXPENSES HAVE BEEN BIFURCATED ON ACTUAL BASIS IS NOT CORRECT. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALLOWED THE EXPENDITURE ON TURN OVER BASIS WHICH IS A WIDELY ACCEPTED BASIS. - - ITA NO.2079 OF 2011 3 5. HAVING REGARD TO THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE HONBL E APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF MCDOWELL COMPANY LTD. V. CTO (154 ITR 148) THAT COLOURABLE DEVICES CANNOT BE PART OF TAX PLANNING AND IT IS WRONG TO ENCOURAG E OR ENTERTAIN THE BELIEF THAT IT IS HONOURABLE TO AV OID THE PAYMENT OF TAX BY RESORTING TO DUBIOUS METHODS , THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. THESE GROUNDS WERE CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL I N ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-0 4, 2004-05, 2006-07AND 2007-08 IN ITA NOS.427 & 428(MD S)/2011 AND 2071 & 2082(MDS)/2010 IN THEIR COMMON ORDER DAT ED 19-9-2011, MORE SPECIFICALLY IN ITA NO.428(MDS)/201 1 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE ORDE R OF THE TRIBUNAL, AND FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE FIND THAT THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. - - ITA NO.2079 OF 2011 4 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ON THURSDAY, THE 1 ST OF MARCH, 2012 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD) (DR. O.K.NARAYANAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT CHENNAI, DATED THE 1 ST MARCH, 2012. V.A.P. COPY TO: (1) APPELLANT (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) D.R. (6) G.F.