TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titled to the benefit u/s 80IB(10) even where the title of the lands had not passed on to the assessees - CIT(A) has noted that the issue in the year under appeal is identical with that of A.Y. 06-07 and also pertains to the same project – there was no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) – Decided against Revenue. - I.T.A. No. 1402/AHD/2011 - - - Dated:- 16-5-2014 - Shri G. C. Gupta And Shri Anil Chaturvedi, A.M.,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Shri P. L. Kureel, Sr. D.R. For the Respondent : Shri Rasesh Shah ORDER Per Shri Anil Chaturvedi,A.M. 1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A)-IV, Surat dated 11.01.2011 for A.Y. 2007-08. 2. The facts as culled out from the material on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso noticed that Assessee had entered into agreement with Shyam Vatika CO. Op. Housing Society Ltd. for construction of housing project as per the planned approved by the local authority for the society, Shyam Vatika Co. Op. Society had purchased the land and conceptulised the housing project, the approval for construction of the project was granted to the land owners. He also noticed that Society had given the possession of site to the Assessee only for the purpose of construction. He therefore concluded that the Assessee was merely a contractor or builder for construction of the house as per the approval obtained by the Society for construction on the land owned by the society and therefore the Assessee was not a developer of the proj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1.05.2009, after considering the factual matrix of the case, concluded that the appellant had carried out the development and building work of the housing project and was eligible for deduction u/s. 80IB(10). Respectfully following the order of my predecessor it is held that the appellant is eligible for deduction u/s. 80IB(10). The A.O is directed to allow the claim of the appellant. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the Revenue is now in appeal before us . 6. Before us, the ld. D.R. relied on the order of A.O. On the other hand the ld. A.R. submitted that on identical facts for A.Y. 06-07 the claim of deduction u/s. 80IB(10) was disallowed by A.O but however CIT(A) decided in favour of Assessee. Against the order of CIT(A), Reven ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the land is not a pre-condition for allowing the deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the I.T.Act. Now before us, the respondent-assessee has placed the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court pronounced in the case of Radhe Developers dated 13.12.2011 (2012) 17 Taxmann.com 156 (Guj.), wherein the decision of the Tribunal has been approved. Rather, we have noted that in the submissions furnished from the cited of the Revenue, it was stated that the Developer has agreed to incur the cost and expense of construction of the proposed building and that any other incidental expenses, such as, fee for obtaining the approval, fee for sanction of the plan was borne and undertaking by the assessee and the owners of the land were not responsible in any ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as been rightly been decided in favour of Assessee and therefore the appeal of the Revenue needs to be dismissed. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. It is an undisputed fact that Assessee has claimed deduction u/s. 80IB(10). It is also an undisputed fact that the project on which Assessee had claimed deduction was the same project on which the Assessee had claimed deduction u/s. 80IB(10) in earlier years and for earlier years, the issue has attained finality by the decision of Hon ble Gujarat High Court cited hereinabove. From the order of CIT(A), it is seen that CIT(A) has noted that the issue in the year under appeal is identical with that of A.Y. 06-07 and also pertains to the same project. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|