9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1758X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee s case. The assessee relied on the discussion of this Tribunal ITAT B Bench, Chennai in the case of ACIT v. M/s.Elegant Estates [ 2016 (5) TMI 1441 - ITAT CHENNAI] on similar issue which was held in favour of the assessee. In the instant case, the sale was made in 2008 and construction agreement was entered in 2008 and UDS was registered in 2008, all the formalities were completed during the FY 2008-09 relevant to the AY 2009-10. Therefore, we hold that the sub clause (e) and (f) of Explanation to Sec.80 IB (10) is not applicable in the case of the assessee and the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s.80 IB (10). Accordingly, we delete the addition made by the AO and set aside the order of the lower authorities. - Decided i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. The CIT (Appeals) erred in sustaining the disallowance of the claim for deduction u/s.80 lB (10) of the Act on the wrong presumption of the sale/allotment of two flats to one person so as to deny the full deduction claimed on the further presumption of the noncompliance of one of the conditions prescribed in the said section without assigning proper reasons and justification. 3. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the reference to the amended provisions namely explanations (f) in the said section by the Finance No.2 Act 2009 inserted with effect from 01.04.2010 was wrongly made and ought to have appreciated that the sale of two flats to one single person was happened prior to the insertion of the said condition whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dditional grounds/arguments at the time of hearing. 2.0 Ground Nos.1 9 are general in nature which do not require specific adjudication. 3.0 Ground Nos.2 to 6 are related to the deduction u/s.80 IB (10) of Income Tax Act (in short the Act ). During the assessment proceedings, the AO found that the assessee has claimed the deduction of ₹ 5,86,13,568/- u/s.80 IB (10) of the Act. The assessee sold two flats to Shri M.Gandhi and Shri Shivakumar in violation of sub clause (f) of explanation to Sec.80 IB (10) of the Act. Therefore, the AO held that the assessee did not satisfy the conditions for allowing the deduction u/s.80 IB 8(10) of the Income Tax Act and accordingly, disallowed the sum of ₹ 5,86,13,568/- an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0) was introduced by the Finance Act 2009 w.e.f. 01.04.2010 and the same is not applicable for the flats sold prior to the effective date. The Ld.AR argued that in the instant case, the Flats were sold in 2008 and registered in favour of the beneficiaries in 2008 before introduction of Sub-clause (e) (f) of Explanation to Sub-Sec.10 of section 80 IB of the Act and hence, the same is not applicable in the case of the assessee and the AO erred in disallowing the deduction claimed by the assessee. On the other hand, the Ld.DR relied on the lower authorities orders. 4.0 We heard both the parties and perused the material placed before us. The assessee has allotted two Flats to Shri N. Suresh Kumar in residential block of Ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... O Nos.51 52/Mds/2016 on similar issue which was held in favour of the assessee. For ready reference, we extract the relevant paragraphs of the decision of the Hon ble ITAT as under: we have considered that rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. The claim of deduction u/s. 80 IB (10) of the Act was rejected by the AO for both the AYs on the ground that flat Nos. 403 and 404 were sold to the same persons, namely, Smt. Latha Ramachndran and Shri K. Ramachandran. The very same issue, namely, sale of flats to Smt. Latha Ramachandran and Shri K. Ramachandran came before this Tribunal for assessment year 2010-11 in ITA No.2902/Mds/2014. This Tribunal found that section 80 IB (10)(f) int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cted the depreciation on motor cars to 15%. 6.0 Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee went on appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO. Hence the assessee is in appeal before us. The Ld.AR argued that the AO ought have allowed the depreciation claimed and the Ld.DR supported orders of lower authorities. 7.0 We heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. During the assessment proceedings, the AO asked the assessee to produce details for verification of addition to assets as well as the evidence for running them on hire. The assessee did not produce the details called for by the AO. The Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the order placing reliance on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
