9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 2083X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd not Project Completion Method and was therefore obliged to account for the revenue generated from the sale of the units during the year in question itself. Any other view would amount to the assessee offering the income arising out of the sale of the units to tax during the current year on which no deduction u/s 80IA of the Act would be available under the Act. ITAT has not erred allowing claim of deduction u/s 80IA(4) in favour of the assessee for the impugned assessment year. Decided in favour of assessee. - INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 838 OF 2016 - - - Dated:- 11-2-2019 - AKIL KURESHI AND B.P.COLABAWALLA, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr.Tejveer Singh For the Respondent : Mr.Percy Pardiwalla, Senior Counsel with Mr.Nitesh Joshi w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sued by the Competent Authority. When the issue reached the Tribunal, the Tribunal by the impugned judgment allowed the assessee's appeal and granted benefit of the deduction. The Tribunal noted that the assessee during the period relevant to the assessment year had already allotted 21 units to different individual industries and such units were also located in the Industrial Park. Such units were also operational. The Tribunal also noted that the certificate from the local authority was obtained on 9th May, 2007. The Tribunal did not accept the revenue's contention that under the circumstances the date of commencement of the Industrial Park should be understood as 9th May, 2007. 3. The Tribunal recorded that admittedly the date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... who is an undertaking which develops and operates or maintains and operates an Industrial Park. The assessee fulfilled the said requirement as also the other procedural requirement laid down in the scheme. Rule 18C(i) itself as noted provided that the benefit would be available to an undertaking which begins to develop such Industrial Park. In the present case, the assessee had already developed the Industrial Park and as many as 21 units were already operational as admitted by the revenue. These units were sold during the assessment year in question. The profit arising out of such sale was accounted for in the said year and offered to tax. It was therefore, that the assessee was entitled to deduction in respect of such profit. The assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r units on the plots so allotted. To our mind, such requirement can neither be read in the Scheme nor can it be fastened on the petitioner in any other manner. The petitioner was a developer of the Industrial Park. The duty and responsibility of the petitioner, to be able to claim tax deductions, was to setup an industrial park by providing necessary infrastructural facilities. We have seen that the development of such a park would require providing of all infrastructural facilities; sub plotting the entire plot and also ensuring that the number of units indicated in the application are sold to the intending industries. In short, the duty and responsibility of the petitioner was to ensure that the industrial activity is facilitated on the I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
