9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 785X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt on the following substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether the Tribunal is correct in holding that the allocation of common expenses in the ratio of turnover of a project should not be adopted but percentage of completion method should be adopted when computing the total turnover of the assessee for the purpose of computation of deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act? (ii) Whether the Tribunal is correct in holding that the assessee would be entitled to claim deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the Act, despite the project "Zircon" having commercial shop establishment of more than 2000 sq. ft. and this project being part of the larger project "Ultima", where number of flats measuring more than 1500 sq. ft. had been constructed contrary to sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal' for short). The tribunal by an order dated 31.05.2010 allowed the claim of the assessee with regard to disallowance of a portion of deduction claimed under Section 80IB of the Act. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the assessee was partly allowed. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed by the revenue. 4. Learned counsel for the revenue while inviting our attention to orders passed by the Assessing Officer, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the tribunal submitted that the tribunal ought to have appreciated that different methods of computing profits and overhead expenses. It is further submitted that once percentage completion method ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 2(47)(v) of the Act, the assessee is the owner of the land in question and if the Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the land did not belong to the assessee the profits could not have been included in the income itself in the first place. It is also argued that the Assessing Officer has conveniently excluded the profit on the sale of land for the purpose of deduction under Section 80IB of the Act, whereas, the same is included in the total income of the assessee. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decisions in 'CIT VS. BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LTD.', 120 TAXMANN.COM 346 (KAR), 'CIT VS. VANDANA PROPERTIES', 19 TAXMANN.COM 316 (BOMBAY), 'JIVRAJ TEA LTD. VS. ACIT', (2017) 80 TAXMA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exclusion of the difference in allocable expenses from the deduction as claimed by the assessee was misconceived and thus, exclusion of difference in allowable expenses is unjustified. It is ordered accordingly. Thus, it is evident that the substantial question of law does not arise for our consideration which is evident from the findings recorded by the tribunal. 7. So far as second substantial question of law is concerned, the aforesaid substantial question of law has been answered by this court in 'COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE, VS. BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LTD.', (2020) 120 TAXMANN.COM 346 (KARNATAKA). For the reasons assigned in the aforesaid decision, the second substantial question of law is answered against the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
