9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 83X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 20-6-2013 - Shri Chandra Poojari And Shri Saktijit Dey, JJ. For the Appellant : Sri S. Rama Rao For the Respondent : Sri M. H. Naik ORDER Per Chandra Poojari, AM:- This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-V, Hyderabad dated 14.10.2011 for A.Y. 2008-09. 2. The assessee raised the following grounds: 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the appellant is not eligible for deduction u/s. 80IA(4)(iii) of the IT Act. The learned CIT(A) ought to have seen that the appellant made an application for approval by the Central Government on 7.1.2008 and complied with all the requirements of sec. 80IA(4)(iii) of the Act. 3. The learned CIT(A) ought to have held that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Assessee Company has constructed the basic structures for the above projects in both the IT Parks i.e., TECHNOVA IT PARK comprising of - Floors and MEENAKSHI TECH PARK - Floors and the completion of the project is scheduled around the end of 2011. 5. The AR further submitted that the process of Approval for an Industrial Park by the Ministry of Commerce Industry, Department of Industrial Policy Promotion, Secretariat for Industrial Assistance, Govt. of India, is an automatic process and approvals are accorded by the Ministry effective from the date of Application, and the process of Approval has already commenced with the Ministry. The AR submitted that similar projects of the assessee company taken up during the Financial Year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 10% offered on the work-in-progress amounting to ₹ 14,74,14,205 under the head of deductions u/s. 80IA(4)(iii) in view of the fact that the profits derived on completion of the project would be entitled to the benefits of Sec. 801A(4)(iii) and also due to the fact that if no claim u/s. 80IA(4)(iii) is made for the current assessment year, the assessee cannot claim the deduction subsequently on an approval granted by the Ministry of Commerce with retrospective effect (i.e., from the date of commencement of the project). The AR further submitted that since the profits are only notional profits in nature and are not real profits derived either out of sale/through operating the facility, the assessee has not obtained a formal certific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section. Undisputedly, such approval or notification had not been received by the assessee. Under the circumstances, the Revenue authorities cannot be said to be incorrect in not allowing the claim of deduction u/s. 80IA. The contention of the assessee counsel is that the assessee got approval from the Ministry of Commerce and Industry vide their letter dated 22.12.2006 for setting up of infrastructure facility for STP unit under the STP Scheme at AlPHA CITY Industrial IT Park at Navalur Village, Old Mahabalipuram road, Kancheepuram, Chennai so as to grant deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act. According to the assessee, the assessee fulfilled the conditions laid down u/s. 80IA(4)(iii) of the Act and it is entitled for deduction u/s. 80IA of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vide their application No. 85/ SIA/IP/2008 dated 10.7.2008 approved on 17.3.2009. As such the assessee 's case has to be approved on similar lines. Further it was brought to our notice that the assessee also made application in response to the advice of Ministry of Commerce Industries to the CBDT vide their application dated 5.3.2009. Further it was submitted that the assessee also filed a Writ Petition on 14.5.2009 before the Madras High Court against the delay made by the Department of Industrial Policy Promotion (DIPP), Ministry of Commerce Industry which was pending. However, in the present case on the date of application made by the assessee, there was no scheme in operation under Industrial Park Policy, 2002. The 2002 scheme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fied by the judgement of Delhi High Court dated 24th January, 2012 in the case of Regency Soraj Infrastructures vs. Union of India Ors., in WPC 13825/2009 and 7699/2010. Thus, the claim of the assessee in ground Nos. 2 to 7 is rejected. 10. Being so, this issue is covered against the assessee. The learned AR tried to distinguish the above order of the Tribunal by submitting that in assessee's case application for approval was made in time and in the above case there was delay in submitting application for approval. Being so, the assessee may get approval from the Ministry of Commerce, Government of India and assessee's case to be remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration after getting approval from Mini ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
