9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 339 - AT - Income TaxDeduction u/s 80IB in respect of profit from the Housing Project at Jodhpur namely ASHIANA AMARBAGH - HELD THAT - As decided in assessee's own case 2017 (12) TMI 1391 - ITAT KOLKATA and 2016 (3) TMI 84 - ITAT KOLKATA allowing the claim of the assessee for deduction under section 80IB. Addition on account of cost of development - assessee had incurred substantial development cost in respect of its Housing Project ASHIANA AMARBAGH undertaken in Jodhpur, Rajasthan and the said cost was allocated by the assessee to the different phases of the Project - HELD THAT - It is observed that even the AO in his assessment order did not pinpoint any defect or deficiency in such basis or method adopted by the assessee. As contended on behalf of the assessee before the CIT(Appeals) as well as before the Tribunal, the same basis or method was adopted by the assessee for allocating the development cost even in the earlier years and the same was accepted by the AO. No infirmity in the impugned order of the CIT(Appeals) accepting the basis or method adopted by the assessee consistently for allocation of development cost of different Phases of the Project and deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on this issue. The same is, therefore, upheld dismissing Ground No. 2 of the Revenue s appeal.
Issues:
- Appeal against orders passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for A.Y. 2013-14 and 2014-15. - Common issues: Deletion of disallowance under section 80IB and addition of development cost. Analysis: 1. Appeal for A.Y. 2013-14: - The issue involved was the deletion of disallowance under section 80IB by the ld. CIT(Appeals). The assessee, a partnership firm engaged in developing housing projects, claimed a deduction under section 80IB for the project "ASHIANA AMARBAGH" in Jodhpur, Rajasthan. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim citing a pending appeal against a similar decision. However, the ld. CIT(Appeals) deleted the disallowance based on previous Tribunal orders favoring the assessee for A.Ys 2010-11 and 2012-13. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals) order, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. 2. Ground No. 2 - Development Cost Addition: - The Revenue challenged the deletion of an addition of excess development cost made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee allocated development costs to different project phases based on completion stages, which the Assessing Officer found unacceptable. The ld. CIT(Appeals) deleted the disallowance, stating that the assessee's method was consistent and acceptable. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals) order, dismissing the Revenue's appeal for A.Y. 2013-14. 3. Appeal for A.Y. 2014-15: - The solitary issue was the deletion of disallowance of development cost made by the Assessing Officer. Similar to A.Y. 2013-14, the Tribunal followed the conclusion drawn for the previous year, upholding the CIT(Appeals) order and dismissing the Revenue's appeal for A.Y. 2014-15. In conclusion, both appeals by the Revenue were dismissed, with the Tribunal upholding the decisions of the ld. CIT(Appeals) regarding the deletion of disallowances under section 80IB and development cost additions for A.Ys 2013-14 and 2014-15. The Tribunal's analysis was based on consistency in the assessee's methods and previous favorable Tribunal orders, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeals.
|
