TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 110X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... typographical error in the computation sheet and the actual profit was ₹ 26,35,686 and inadvertently the same was mentioned as ₹ 23,35,686 - The books of account are audited and it was not mentioned anywhere that there was undisclosed receipts – Following ITO v. Shakti Corporation [2008 (11) TMI 436 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] - the benefit under 80-IB(10) would be available if the developer has dominant control over the project and has developed the land at its own cost and risk and the benefit would be denied if the assessee had entered into an agreement for a fixed remuneration as a contractor to construct or develop the project on behalf of the land owner - The issue was restored for fresh adjudication. The TDS was not deducted on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng approved by the local authority. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) relied on the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's decision in the case of M/s. Shakti Developers. The said decision have not been accepted by the Department and an appeal to the High Court has been filed. 4. The facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of development of land and construction of residential buildings. The return of income was filed on October 31, 2005 declaring total income at nil. The assessee claimed deduction under section 80-IB(10) of the Act of ₹ 26,35,686. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim on the following grounds : (i) The land is not in the name of the firm. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all the other conditions regarding area, etc., as laid down under section 80-IB(10) are also satisfied. Reliance is placed on the decision of the hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of M/s. Radhe Developers. It is also submitted that on identical issue for the assessment year 2004-05 the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has allowed the deduction under section 80-IB(10). The appellant contends that there was a typographical error in the computation sheet and the actual profit was ₹ 26,35,686 and inadvertently the same was mentioned as ₹ 23,35,686. It is impressed that the books of account are audited and nowhere it is mentioned that there was undisclosed receipts. 4.3 I have carefully examined the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer directing the Assessing Officer to verify the agreement and other details in the light of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shakti Developers, we feel no need to interfere with the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the same is upheld. The appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. 7. In the cross-objection, the ground raised by the assessee is that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not justified in not allowing deduction under section 80-IB(10) on the disallowance made invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 8. During the assessment proceedings, a sum of ₹ 10,93,134 under section 40(a)(ia) was disallowed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
