9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1648X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing project is allotted to any person not being an individual and” Assessing Officer rightly recorded the reason for reopening and issued notice under Section 148 of the Act. Accordingly and validly, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment. We do not find any infirmity in the reopening of the assessment. Disallowance of benefit under Section 80IB(10) - In this case, admittedly, the assessee sold 20 flats to M/s. Indian Overseas Bank, which is not an individual. In our opinion, clause (e) of Section 80IB(10) of the Act is applicable from the assessment year 2010-11. However, as held by Judicial High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Arun Excello Foundations Pvt. Ltd. [2012 (12) TMI 415 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] the deduction u/s 80IB(10) cannot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntly, it came to the notice of the Assessing Officer, that the assessee has violated the conditions laid down in the recently inserted clause (e) of Section 80IB(10) of the Act which is applicable with effect from 01.04.2010. Since, the assessee has sold 20 flats to M/s. Indian Overseas Bank, which is not an individual, on that basis the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment for the assessment year 2010-11 by issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act on 03.04.2014, which is within the four years from the end of the assessment year 2010-11. Now, the assessee's Ld. counsel strongly opposed the reopening of the assessment. According to the Ld. counsel, there is no tangible fresh material to reopen the concluded assessment and it is bad i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... usage of 20 individuals who are low or middle income group and the bank is owned and controlled by the Government. There is no bar in selling the flats to public sector undertaking more so for the assessment year 2010-11, that provision cannot be applied. On the other hand, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that there cannot be total disallowance of deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Act. He pleaded that proportionate deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Act may be granted. He relied on the following judgments. i) CIT v G.R. Developers in (2013) 353 ITR 0001, wherein held that when the act came into effect from 1st April 2005, it cannot be held with retrospective and it will be effective from subsequent to 01.04.2005. i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessing authority is accordingly directed to make proportionate disallowance and pass its consequential order." 7.1 He also relied on the decisions of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai in the cases of Arun Excello Foundations Pvt. Ltd., 108 TTJ 71 and Sanghvi & Doshi Enterprises Vs Income Tax Officer 131 ITD 151 (Chennai-TM). 7.2 He relied on the decision in the case Emgeen Holdings Pvt Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 12 Taxmann.com 468 (Mum), where sale of more than one residential unit to family members has been held to be not violative of Sec. 80IB as it stood prior to the amendment. 8. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative relied on the order of the lower authority and submitted that the assessee ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
