9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 725X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Income Tax Vs. Paul Brothers [ 1992 (10) TMI 5 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] held that the assessee is entitled to claim pro-rata deduction in respect of shops and commercial establishments having no change in the facts of the case. We hold that the assessee is entitled to claim pro-rata deduction on shops and commercial establishments for A.Y. 2014-15 - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.2136/PUN/2017 - - - Dated:- 16-9-2020 - Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice President And Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Nikhil Pathak For the Revenue : Shri Asif A. Karmali ORDER PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM : This appeal by the assessee against the order dated 20-07-2017 passed by the Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for claiming deduction is A.Y. 2008-09. In Column No. 23 of the said Form No. 10CCB also shows the claim of pro-rata built up area of shops and other commercial establishments at 2225.58 sq. ft. out of 5000 sq. ft. Thus, it is clear the assessee claimed pro-rata deduction in respect of built up area of shops and other commercial establishments for the year under consideration. 9. Coming to the previous A.Y. 2012-13 the Form No. 10CCB is at page No. 44 of the Paper Book, wherein in Column No. 23 the assessee sought pro-rata deduction for built up area of shops and other commercial establishments at 2225.58 sq. Mtr. and there is no denial by the respondent revenue regarding the allowance of pro-rata deduction in respect of shops and othe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere was no change in the facts of the case as compared to earlier years. Therefore, in our opinion the decision on the principle of consistency laid down by the Hon ble High Court of Bombay is clearly applicable to the present case. 13. Regarding the order of this Tribunal as relied by the ld. AR in the case of M/s. Messung Systems (supra) we find the similar facts in the said case, this Tribunal while placing reliance on the decision of Hon ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Paul Brothers (supra) held the assessee is entitled to claim deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act when the deduction of earlier years has not been disturbed any of the authorities. The relevant portion of para 17 is reproduced here-inbelow for better understand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inary issue is allowed, the main grounds of appeal becomes academic, hence, require no adjudication. 4. We note that in the present appeal the assessee claimed deduction ₹ 18,80,000/- u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act. The AO held that the assessee has violated the provisions of section 80IB(10) of the Act as built up area of shops and commercial establishments exceeded 5000 sq. ft. For such violation the AO denied the deduction of ₹ 18,80,000/- vide its order dated 27-12-2016. The CIT(A) confirmed the order of AO. 5. As noted above, the assessee sought pro-rata deduction in respect of shops and commercial establishments in ground No. 6. This Tribunal in assessee‟s own case for A.Y. 2013-14 observed that the respondent reve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
