9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 258X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... observed that the assessee has not properly utilized the area of the land and has not developed the area of land, because, as per permissible FSI, more number of residential units in multistoried buildings could have been constructed – Relying upon CIT Vs. Radhe Developers [2011 (12) TMI 248 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] - lower authorities were not justified in disallowing the claim of deduction u/s 80IB ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t.Year 2006-07, the following grounds are raised:- 1) The Ld.Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-XV, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts in deleting the penalty of Rs.23,06,660/- (for AY 2007-08 of Rs.14,65,577/-) levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. 2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-XV, Ahmedabad ought to have upheld the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that this Tribunal in assessee s own case in ITA Nos.2710 2711/Ahd/2010 for Asst.Years 2006-07 2007-08 respectively vide order dated 08/11/2013 has held as under:- 11. We have heard rival submissions and perused the orders of the lower authorities and material available on record. In the instant cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n disallowing the claim of deduction under section 80IB of the Act, on such ground. 12. With regard to other observations of the learned CIT(A), in respect of non-proper development of the land of one acre, the requirement of law, as held by this Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s.Shreenathhji Construction Vs. ITO, in ITA No.3224/Ahd/2009 order dated 9.11.2012 is as under: We find tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
