9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 314X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act have been fulfilled in all respect, allowed assessee s claim of deduction under the said provision while disposing off the appeals[ 2017 (1) TMI 445 - ITAT MUMBAI ]. It is worth mentioning, the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal was brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer in the course of the assessment proceedings for the impugned assessment year. However, the Assessing Officer has declined to follow the decision of the Tribunal on the flimsy grounds that he has not received a copy of the said order officially and further, that the Revenue reserves its right to contest the decision before the High Court. Once the Tribunal, being the last fact finding authority, has recorded a factual finding that the housing project was com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esh Residency, at Bhandup (West), Mumbai. In the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer while examining assessee s claim of deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act in respect of the said housing project found that similar deduction claimed by the assessee in the assessment years 2010 11, 2011 12, 2012 13 and 2013 14 have been disallowed by the Assessing Officer alleging violation of conditions mentioned in section 80IB(10) of the Act. In consonance with the view taken in the preceding assessment years, the Assessing Officer disallowed assessee s claim of deduction in the impugned assessment year as well. Being aggrieved with the disallowance of deduction claimed under section 80IB(10) of the Act, the assessee preferred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssioner (Appeals) should be upheld. 5. Shri Manjunatha Swamy, the learned Departmental Representative, though, agreed that the issue in dispute is covered by the decisions of the Tribunal and Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in assessee s own case, however, he relied upon the observations of the Assessing Officer. 6. Having considered rival submissions, we find from record that the assessee developed a housing project in the name and style of Mayuresh Residency. According to the assessee, the construction of the housing project commenced on 10th September 2007 and completed on 18th March 2013, i.e., prior to 31st March 2013, the cut off date as per section 80IB(10)(a)(iii) of the Act. Therefore, assessee has claimed that it is entitled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t proceedings for the impugned assessment year. However, the Assessing Officer has declined to follow the decision of the Tribunal on the flimsy grounds that he has not received a copy of the said order officially and further, that the Revenue reserves its right to contest the decision before the High Court. It is worth mentioning, the Revenue s appeal challenging the decision of the Tribunal in assessment years 2010 11 and 2011 12, in the meanwhile, were dismissed by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court vide order dated 30th September 2019, in ITA no.421/2017 and order dated 3rd March 2020, in ITA no.1271/2017. In fact, while dismissing the Revenue s appeal in assessment year 2011 12, reported in CIT v/s Rattanchand Rikhabdas Jain Che ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
