9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 339X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t order did not pinpoint any defect or deficiency in such basis or method adopted by the assessee. As contended on behalf of the assessee before the CIT(Appeals) as well as before the Tribunal, the same basis or method was adopted by the assessee for allocating the development cost even in the earlier years and the same was accepted by the AO. No infirmity in the impugned order of the CIT(Appeals) accepting the basis or method adopted by the assessee consistently for allocation of development cost of different Phases of the Project and deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on this issue. The same is, therefore, upheld dismissing Ground No. 2 of the Revenue s appeal. - I.T.A. No. 2202/KOL/2016, I.T.A. No. 1414/KOL/2017 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0/- after claiming deduction of ₹ 3,53,44,355/- under section 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The deduction was claimed by the assessee in respect of housing project undertaken under the name and style as ASHIANA AMARBAGH in Jodhpur, Rajasthan. Since the similar deduction as claimed by the assessee under section 80IB in respect of the same project was disallowed in the earlier years, the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings was required by the Assessing Officer to explain as to why the deduction claimed by it under section 80IB during the year under consideration should not be disallowed. In reply, reliance was placed by the assessee on the decision of the ld. CIT(Appeals) rendered in its own case for A.Y. 2012-13 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same shows that a similar issue relating to the assessee s claim for deduction under section 80IB in respect of profit from the Housing Project at Jodhpur namely ASHIANA AMARBAGH was decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 vide its order dated 22.01.2016 passed in ITA No. 12/KOL/2014. The said decision of the Tribunal rendered in A.Y. 2010-11 was subsequently followed by the Tribunal to decide the similar issue in favour of the assessee for A.Y. 2012-13 vide its order dated October 06, 2017 passed in ITA No. 1307/KOL/2015. Since the material facts relevant to this issue as involved in the year under consideration are similar to A.Ys 2010-11 and 2012-13, we respectfully follow the orders of the Tribunal for the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... charged to the each Phase of project completed and the balance amount was carried forward for the remaining Phases. This basis adopted by the assessee for allocation of the development cost to different Phases was not found acceptable by the Assessing Officer. According to him, the total development cost of ₹ 14,76,01,755/- was required to be allocated to the different Phases on the basis of saleable area and since Phase-V and phase-VI completed by the assessee during the year under consideration comprised of 2,18,931 sq.ft. out of the total saleable area of 5,93,876 sq.ft. of the total project, proportionate development cost of ₹ 5,50,66,373/- was required to be allocated to Phase-V and Phase-VI. Since the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e without any deduction u/s 80IB. The AO has not found out any deviation from this formula for two periods when the income is exempt and when taxable. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the development cost attributed. Additionally, it is seen that the comparison done by the AO of year wise attribution of development cost is faulty because the development cost attributed for this AY i.e 2013-14, ₹ 4,95,15,098/- also includes the development cost for subsequent AY i.e 2014-15 . 10. We have heard the arguments of both the sides on this issue and also perused the relevant material available on record. Although the ld. D.R. has relied on the working of allocation of development cost as made by the Assessing Of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
