9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 757X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had accepted the full price of the land. He was therefore not concerned with the successor or failure of the housing project. In such background, reference was made to the definition of term transfer under section 2(47) of the Act and held that merely because the land was held by the original owner when the housing development project was executed, would not be detrimental to the assessee s claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10). Decided against the Revenue X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Assessing Officer's action of disallowing assessee's claim of deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act, finds support from decision of (1) ITAT Chennai Bench "B" in the case of Prime Developers Vs. Income tax Officer Ward 1(4) Tirupur reported in (2015) 64 taxmann.com 48 (Chennai-Trib.) and (2) ITAT Chennai Bench "A" in the case of Arihant Heirloom vs. Income tax Officer, Non-Corporate-140(1) Chennai reported in (2017) 79 taxmann.com.19 (Chennai-Trib)? (d) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act by relying on its decision in the assessee's case for A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11, wherein it had relied on its de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from those for A.Y. 2010-11 to A.Y. 2012-13 and therefore, I should follow my own appellant orders for those assessment years and delete the erroneous addition made by the Ld. AO. The Ld. AR also enclosed the copy of my order in appeal no. CIT(A)- 12/ CC1/ Baroda/334B, 345B, 346B/ 14-15 dated 28/10/2015 and drew my attention on para 6 of the appellate order. Having considered the material on record and having minutely perused the assessment order and the written submissions filed by the appellant, I have noted that the AR is right that the facts for the year under reference are exactly identical to those involved in A.Yrs. 2010-11 to 2012- 13. It is therefore axiomatic that I follow my own order (supra). I would quote para 6 of the said app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in appellant's own case for AY 09-10, the AO's action of rejecting the claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) is held unwarranted and unsustainable. The appellant is held eligible for deduction u/s 80IB(10). The related additions for the three Assessment Years under reference are deleted as under: Sr. No. A.Y Relief granted 1 2010-11 ₹ 20,08,55,870/- 2 2011-12 ₹ 29,92,70,977/- 3 2012-13 ₹ 13,75,57,038/- The related grounds for all the three Assessment Years, i.e. A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 are thus allowed". 4. In view of the above, I have no hesitation in holding that the Ld. AO has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the claim of the appellant u/s 80IB(10). As such, the addition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the aforesaid facts, we respectfully following the decision of the coordinate bench of Tribunal in the case of Narayan Reality (supra) hold that the Assessee is eligible for deduction u/s. 80IB(10). Thus this ground of Assessee is allowed. 8. Apart from above said id. A.R. also cited an order of ITAT in assessee's own case for A.Ys. 2010-11 to 2012- 13. The issue before the Bench was that id.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the A.O. in respect of disallowances of deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of Income Tax Act and in this case at Para no.5 ITAT held as follows:- 8. We find that in the case of Narayan Reality Ltd. (supra) the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal, after placing reliance on the various decision cited therein deci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng Officer disallowed the claim mainly on the ground that the assessee was not the owner of the land and the approval of the project was not in the name of the assessee. The issue ultimately reached the Tribunal where the Revenue also contended that the assessee had not sold the residential spouse in the housing project but had sold the residential plots with construction upto plinth level. The assessee therefore cannot be considered as a developer of a housing project but was mere a contractor. The Tribunal followed its earlier judgment in case of similar assessee and confirmed the decision of CIT (A) allowing the claim. 4. Various issues arising out of the claim of different assesses under section 80IB(10) of the Act came to be thrashe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
