Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2013 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (1) TMI 419 - AT - Income TaxDeduction u/s 80-IB(10) - Whether a deduction original claimed in the return of income filed could be revised in the course of assessment proceedings? - Held that:- CIT (Appeals) was justified in considering the revised computation as a valid one for the purpose of claiming deduction u/s 80-IB(10). There is a clear finding by the CIT (Appeals) that assessee had made a claim u/s 80-IB(10) in the original return itself. This position has not been disputed. Revised computation was filed by the assessee whereby it re-worked the quantum of the claim considering each of the project separately or in other words, by omitting out those projects which resulted in a loss. This, cannot be construed as a fresh claim - against revenue. Prorata deduction u/s 80-IB(10) for the housing projects - Whether deduction u/s 80-IB(10) could be given to an assessee even where some of the dwelling units in a project exceeded built-up area 1500 sq.ft.? - Held that:- As decided in Sanghvi & Doshi Enterprise v. ITO [2011 (5) TMI 597 - ITAT, CHENNAI] that the assessees are entitled for deduction under s. 80-IB(10) in respect of flats having built-up area not exceeding 1,500 sq.ft. and not entitled for deduction in respect of those flats having their built-up area exceeding 1,500 sq.ft - against revenue. Whether each of the project could be considered independently for the purpose of working out deduction u/s 80-IB(10) - whether such deduction could be calculated ignoring the losses in some of the projects subject to the limitations placed by Section 80-AB - Held that:- Assessee admittedly was having only one homogenous business activity that was construction and selling of flats. No doubt, it was having five projects, but the question is whether each of the projects were forming part and parcel of one unit or part of one industrial undertaking. There is no claim for the assessee that each of these projects were separate and there was no interlacing, interconnection or interdependence. Assessee was only doing housing project development which is a homogenous business and vis-à-vis the five projects, there was no demarcation of identity, in such a manner that each of the project could be considered as independent units. There is nothing in this sub-section 10 of Section 80-IB which would require each of the housing projects to be considered by itself as independent undertaking while working out the deduction. Here, there is nothing on record to show that each of the projects were independent, with no interlacing, interconnection or interdependence of various units. Therefore, all these projects together had to be considered as a single unit for the purpose of working out deduction under Section 80-IB(10) and the methodology adopted by the assessee in the revised computation filed by it, cannot accepted - in favour of the Revenue. Non deduction of TDS on contract amounts paid - invoking Section 40(a)(ia) for disallowing the claim - Held that:- Whether the amounts were fully paid or payable at the end of the relevant previous year, is not clear from the record. Special Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Merilyn Shipping & Transport v. Addl. CIT [2012 (4) TMI 290 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM] has held that Section 40(a)(ia) would be applicable only to amounts standing payable at the end of the relevant previous year. Therefore, the matter requires a fresh look by the AO - in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.
|