2020 (9) TMI 1103 - AT - Income Tax

Allowability of deduction u/s 80IA(4)(iii) - as per revenue no single entity or its related enterprise can occupy more than 25% of the allocable area was violated - CIT-A allowed deduction - whether CIT(A) was justified in holding that the assessee is eligible for deduction while the condition that minimum number of 30 units should be operational for availing the benefit was not met since by 31.03.2010 only 16 units were operational? - HELD THAT - When there is no counter findings placed on record by the Department, we do not find any reason to deviate from the view taken in assessee s own case for A.Y. 2011-12 2018 (4) TMI 1821 - ITAT PUNE and following the same, we are of the considered view that the relief provided by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to the assessee allowing the claim of deduction u/s 80IA(4)(iii) of the Act was done correctly and the said relief provided to the assessee is sustained.

Summary

Issues:
- Allowability of deduction u/s 80IA(4)(iii) of the Act.

Analysis:
1. The appeal by the Revenue challenged the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for A.Y. 2012-13 regarding the deduction u/s 80IA(4)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The main contention was whether the assessee fulfilled the conditions for claiming the deduction.

2. The assessee had claimed the deduction for A.Y. 2012-13, which was the final year of its claim under Sec.80IA(4)(iii). The history of the claim showed initial rejections, subsequent allowances, and recent rejections by the ACIT for A.Ys. 2010-11 and 2011-12.

3. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction for A.Y. 2012-13, citing that the construction completion dates and initial claim in A.Y. 2003-04 did not align with the eligibility criteria under Sec.80IA(4)(iii).

4. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed the deduction for A.Y. 2012-13 based on the assessee's compliance with conditions and past allowances. The decision was supported by the Supreme Court ruling and consistency in previous assessments.

5. The Pune Tribunal's decision in the assessee's case for A.Y. 2011-12 was referenced, where the Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the deduction was upheld. The Department failed to present new evidence or contradict the previous findings for A.Y. 2012-13.

6. The Tribunal, after reviewing submissions and past judgments, upheld the Commissioner's decision to allow the deduction for A.Y. 2012-13. The identical circumstances and lack of contrary evidence led to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.

7. The Tribunal found no reason to deviate from the precedent set in the assessee's case for A.Y. 2011-12, where the deduction under Sec.80IA(4)(iii) was correctly allowed. Consequently, the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed on 25th September 2020.