Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2011 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (11) TMI 638 - AT - Income TaxDeduction u/s 80IB(10) - revision u/s 263 - Held that:- The requirement of law u/s 80IB(10) for allowing a deduction under this section is only that the project should be commenced and completed within the period prescribed under clause (a) of this section 80IB(10) of the Act. To prove the completion of project within the specified period if the assessee is not able to file a completion certificate other evidence in this regard may be taken into account to determine the actual date of completion. Therefore, the filing of completion certificate is not a condition precedent for allowing a deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. Moreover, we are dealing with the order of the CIT passed u/s 263 of the Act. It is a settled position of law that where the issue is debatable and the assessing officer has taken one of the plausible view, the assessment order cannot be revised u/s 263 of the Act. In the instant case, we are of the view that assessing officer has allowed the deduction u/s 80IB(10) after having examined the other evidence of completion of project which appears to be plausible view. Therefore, his order cannot be revised u/s 263 of the Act. We, therefore, find no merit in the order of the CIT in this regard. Interest on partners drawings - Held that:- The withdrawals were made out of the interest free funds. Similar was the position in the assessment year 2007-08 in which the partners credit balance was at ₹ 61,17,712/- and the withdrawal by the partner were at ₹ 26,06,753/-. Since the withdrawals were made out of the interest free funds, no corresponding disallowance of interest paid on loans, can be made. The CIT has not brought out anything in his order that the interest bearing funds were withdrawn by the partners. Moreover, this aspect was duly examined by the assessing officer by making necessary queries. Therefore, we are of the view that without bringing out anything on record that interest bearing funds were diverted for a non-business purpose, the CIT is not justified in holding that the assessing officer ought to have disallowed the corresponding interest on the withdrawal made by the partners of the assessee firm. Thus, we are of the view that the CIT has wrongly exercised his jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and we accordingly set aside his order.
|