9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 782X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ] held that BIAL is a statutory body and therefore the order of the Tribunal dated 30.1.2014 was recalled to consider this aspect of the matter and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee. Similarly for AY 2010-11 in assessee s own case, both the issues were decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal by order [ 2016 (6) TMI 1408 - ITAT BANGALORE ] and the revenue s appeal was dismissed. For the year under consideration the facts and circumstances being identical to that of the earlier years, we find no reason to take a contrary view. Accordingly the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. - SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant by : Shri Sunil Kumar Si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was also noted that the facts and circumstances were similar in AY 2011-12. Following his predecessor s order, the CIT(Appeals) held that assessee is entitled to claim deduction u/s 80IA of the Act and deleted the disallowance made by the AO. 4. Aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal on the following grounds:- 1. The Order of the Ld.CIT(A) is opposed to the law and facts of the case. 2. The CIT(A) ought to have adjudicated on the merits of the case instead of following his predecessor's Order for AY 2012-13, who in turn relied on the Order of his predecessor for AY 2010-11 and order of the ITAT for AY 2009-10. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal and thereby granting d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y be reversed and that of the Assessing Officer may be restored. 7. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or delete any of the grounds that may be urged. 5. The ld. counsel for the assessee supported the order of CIT(Appeals) and submitted that the Tribunal in assessee s own case for AY 2009-10 2010-11 decided the issue in favour of assessee. On the other hand, ld. DR relied on the order of the AO. 6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find that the Tribunal in AY 2009-10 vide its order dated 30.1.2014 in ITA No.1160/Bang/2012 while holding that the agreement entered into by the assessee with BIAL was for development, operation and maintenance of infrastructure facility u/s. 80IA(4) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
