The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 4028 (Del-Trib)

IN THE ITAT, DELHI BENCH

PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A.M. & K.N. CHARY, J.M.

DLF Ltd. v. JCIT

I.T.A. Nos. 4187, 4793/Del/2015

29 September, 2020

Appellant by: R.S. Singhvi, CA, Satyajeet Goel, CA

Respondent by: Nidhi Srivastava, CIT DR

ORDER

Prashant Maharishi, A.M.

1. These are the cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 7 (1)), New Delhi (the learned Assessing Officer/AO) against the order of Commissioner (Appeals)-3, New Delhi (the learned that CITA) dated 14-5-2015 for assessment year 2010-11.

2. The assessee in its appeal in ITA No. 4187/Del/2015 has raised following grounds of appeal --

ITA No. 4187/Del/2015, Assessment Year 2010-11

That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has grossly erred in law and on the facts in restricting the disallowance made by assessing officer under section 14A read with rule 8D(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to Rs. 37,97,74,00 when no disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D(ii) is warranted as the appellant had itself disallowed/added back Rs. 19,15,695 under section 14A. [Page 101-115 of Commissioner (Appeals)'s Order]

2.1 That learned Commissioner (Appeals) has grossly erred in law and on the facts in confirming the net addition of Rs. 7,69,038 [i.e. after allowing standard deduction @ 30% on gross addition of Rs. 10,98,626 which works out to Rs. 3,29,588] made by the assessing officer on account of notional rent, whereas in fact the appellant has not received any rental income from these tenants. [Page 136-140 Commissioner (Appeals)'s Order]

2.2 That learned Commissioner (Appeals) has grossly erred in law and on the facts in not appreciating the fact that the taxable income means real income and not a fictional income.

3. That learned Commissioner (Appeals) has grossly erred on the facts and in law in confirming the disallowance made by the assessing officer to the Rs. 20,42,053 on account of registration fee for the Gujarat and Karnataka windmills by treating the same as capital in nature. [Page 151-177 of Commissioner (Appeals)'s Order]

4. That the appellant reserves its right to assail the same on such other ground or grounds as may be advanced at the time of hearing for which the appellant craves leave to amend, vary or add to the grounds hereinbefore appearing.

3. The learned assessing officer in ITA No. 4793/Del/2015 has raised following grounds of appeal --

ITA No. 4793/Del/2015, Assessment Year 2010-11

1. The Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in allowing deduction of Rs. 178,61,73,799 under section 80-IAB of the Act.

2. The Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in deleting in disallowances made by assessing officer of Rs. 93,02,00,000 on account expenses to be allocated from non SEZ projects to SEZ projects.

3. The Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in deleting disallowance of Rs. 68,59,59,202 on account of revenue recognition as per POCM.

4. The Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 2,35,037,000 on account of interest capitalization.

5. The Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 145,10,655 on account of brokerage and commission.

6. The Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,39,112 on account of contingency deposits received from customers during the year.

7. The Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in deleting the addition of Rs. 70,62,529 on account interest free security deposit.

8. The Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,34,45,144 on account of registration charges.

9. The Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,24,52,456 on account of non-allocation of proportionate overheads expenditure to group companies.

10. The Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in restricting the disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with rule 8D of the Income Tax Rule, 1962 to Rs. 18,15,695 as against the disallowance of Rs. 132,66,81,000 made by the assessing officer.

11. The Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,87,48,896 on account of reclassification of income from house property to income from business or profession.

12. The Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,29,430 on account of notional rental income on vacant properties.

13. The Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,64,961 on account of recalculation of depreciation in respect of earlier let out DLF Centre Building, now converted to self occupied property.

14. The Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,75,95,830 made by the assessing officer on account of disallowance of prior period expenses.

SUBSCRIBE TaxPublishers.inSUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT