9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 110X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of. 3. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the CIT(A) may be set-aside and that of Assessing Officer may be restored to the above extent." 2. In this case the assessment was finalized u/s 143(3) read with section 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961 thereby the claim made u/s 80IB of the Act was disallowed of Rs. 2,42,08,327/-. The assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who after submissions of the assessee allowed the appeal. 3. Ld. CIT-DR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to address the deletion of the Assessing Officer. He submitted that the Assessing Officer had observed that the original plot for construction was not approved ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es of the case. 3.1. On the contrary, Ld. authorized representative of the assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) as considered all the facts and circumstances in the right perspective. He submitted that the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal rendered in the Shakti Corporation and Radhe Developers have been confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujrat in Tax Appeal of 246 of 2008 vide oral judgment dated 13 December, 2011. The written submissions are also placed on record. In written submission it is submitted that the objections of the AO was that the assessee has no legal document which may prove the ownership on land on which the project is constructed. It is submitted that the partnership firm was registered on 19-04-1997 and one of the par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is Rutvan Housing Co-operative Society who is the owner of the land on which all development activities are carried out even the assessee has not furnished any copy of agreement with Rutvan Housing Society regarding its role and activities for developing the project under construction. The contention of the Ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee is that the case is duly covered by the decision by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujrat rendered in the case of Radhe Developers (supra). We find that the AO had declined the deduction in the absence of any agreement/understanding with the Rutvan Co-operative Housing Society, it cannot be inferred as what was role and activity of the assessee in constructing the project. 4.1 We find that the M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
