9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 1103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in allowing the deduction u/s 80IA(4)(iii) of the I.T. Act, 1961, when there was no notification at the time of completion of the assessment (the notification no. 209/2007/F.NO.178/78/2007-ITA-I of CBDT has been actually issued on 03/07/2007)." 2) "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CIT(A) was justified in holding that the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 80IA(4)(iii) of the I.T.Act, 1961 though the specific condition in the notification pertaining to the assessee regarding the number of units was not fulfilled." 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CIT(A) was justified in holding that the assessee is eligible for deduction u/ s 80IA(4)(iii) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igh Court and the decision is pending. The subsequent years i.e., in A.Ys. 2005-06 to 2009-10, the claim of the assessee was allowed. Again in A.Ys. 2010-11 and 2011-12, the ACIT, Circle-11(2), Pune had rejected the claim of deduction under Sec.80IA(4)(iii) of the Act. 4. That in the relevant year, the assessee had submitted Form 10CCB and also submitted details of separate accounts being maintained for the rental income pertaining to software park and business income in respect of development activity. The detailed working of deduction claimed has been furnished before the learned Assessing Officer. The learned Assessing Officer observed that the assessee in Form 10CCB has stated that the construction was completed in phases in 2002, 2003 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 012- 13 also allowed deduction under Sec.80IA(4)(iii) of the Act the facts and circumstances being identical. At the time of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative appraised the Bench that for the preceding assessment year 2011-12 in assessee's own case in the appeal preferred by the Revenue before ITAT, Pune Benches, the Pune Tribunal had dismissed the appeal and sustained the relief provided by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to the assessee. The learned Authorised Representative further submitted that the facts and circumstances are absolutely identical for this year also and therefore, the deduction allowed in the preceding year i.e., A.Y. 2011-12 should also be allowed in this relevant year also. 6. Per contra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion under section 80IA(4) of the Act by the Tribunal in assessment year 2003-04 in ITA No.723/PN/2007, vide order dated 27.07.2011. The copy of said order is placed at pages 79 to 81 of Paper Book. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in ITA No.484 of 2012 vide order dated 26.03.2013 has admitted the appeal of assessee, which is pending for disposal, copy of said order is placed at pages 82 and 83 of Paper Book. Thereafter, assessment for assessment year 2004-05 was completed under section 143(3) of the Act and deduction claimed was denied. The Tribunal in ITA No.536/PN/2012, vide order 26.11.2014 has upheld the addition, however, directed the Assessing Officer to follow the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in view of declaration filed by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 127 to 132 of the Paper Book. However, the Assessing Officer denied the claim of deduction to the assessee on the ground that it was not clear from the computation of income whether the assessee had derived any income from the eligible business of software park. 7. Before the CIT(A), the assessee contended that the Assessing Officer had ignored the Profit and Loss Account relating to software business filed vide letter dated 14.02.2014. The assessee also referred to the computation of income, in which the assessee had earned income by way of rent and maintenance charges from software park amounting to Rs. 1,05,89,042/-. The assessee also filed the net rental income and business income eligible for deduction under section 80IA(4)(iii) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Representative could not contravene these facts on record and also could not bring any material on record / evidences to show that the facts and circumstances for the relevant assessment year i.e., A.Y. 2012-13 were something different as compared to the facts for A.Y. 2011-12 which is the preceding year. When the facts and circumstances are absolutely identical, when there is no counter findings placed on record by the Department, we do not find any reason to deviate from the view taken in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2011-12 (supra) and following the same, we are of the considered view that the relief provided by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to the assessee allowing the claim of deduction under Sec.80IA(4)(iii) of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
