9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 1235X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pleas of the revenue. Therefore, we dismiss this ground of appeal of the Revenue. Now, we come to next ground with regard to allowing deduction u/s. 80IB(10) - In this case assessee has claimed deduction under section 80IB(10) of ₹ 38,75,140/- for the year under consideration. It has been noticed that in earlier years on the same issue of deduction under 80IB(10) for A.Y. 2007-08, A.Y. 2010-11, A.Y. 2011-12 and A.Y. 2012-13 claim of the assessee was allowed by the Ld. CIT(A). Thus, at the principle of consistency we dismiss this ground of appeal of the Revenue. - ITA No. 6593/MUM/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) - - - Dated:- 7-11-2019 - SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD (JM) AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) Assessee by: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ship Firm at the time of retirement on 11.04.2012 is done in terms of net assets of the partnership which remain after meeting the debts and liabilities, then the share comes to around of ₹ 9.28 crores, which is almost the same as the amount of capital introduced five years back. c) The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that either Net Asset Method or Discounted Cash Flow method is the accepted way of valuing the shares, and the Assessing Officer adopted the net asset method for valuation of shares and the value of shares of the assessee of ₹ 9.28 crores is lesser than the contribution of ₹ 9.35 crores. d) The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that adopting the Ready Reckon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to allow deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, amounting to ₹ 38,75,1407- and treating the assessee as the Developer of the Project. a) The Ld. CIT(A) had ignored the fact that as per the Joint Venture Agreement between the assessee and M/s. Varnan Estate, the development and construction of the building has to be done by M/s. Vaman Estate at its own cost, and the assessee did neither invest any money nor developed/constructed the building. b) The Ld. CIT(A) ignored the fact that after the Joint Venture Agreement, the status of the assessee changed from the Developer to mere facilitators and M/s. Vaman Estate became the Developer. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #8377; 9,64,319/- during A.Y. 2013-14. But Ld. AO was not agree with the contention of the assessee and hold that when in 2012, M/s. Abode Builders decided to retire and its share in terms of net assets of the partnership which remain after meeting the debts and liabilities, was same amount of ₹ 9.28 crores which was introduced five years back then M/s. Abode Builders would have been required to be compensated at least with the interest foregone at ₹ 9.28 crores which it would have earned in five years. 3. In view of the above findings and material evidences the amount of ₹ 5,06,55,000/- paid over and above ₹ 9,28,45,000/- was treated as income from other sources. 4. Thereafter, assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A.Y. 2012-13. The AO has taken the opinion that assessee is not eligible for deduction under section 80IB(10) rejected the claim of 80IB(10) and made addition of ₹ 38,75,140/- as income from business and profession. 10. Thereafter, the assessee preferred first statutory appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who revisited all the issues and query raised from the assessee with regard to claim of long-term capital gain or income from other sources and assessee satisfactorily reply to the Ld. CIT(A) who hold that assessee was eligible for long-term capital gain. So far, second ground is concerned Ld. CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee stating that issue of claim of assessee under section 80IB(10) of the Act amounting to ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
