TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 682X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r perverse nor giving rise to any error of law apparent on the face of the record. The issue cannot be reopened in the manner sought to be done in the present case and section 263 of the Act could not be resorted to for the purpose. The order of the Assessing Officer had obviously merged with the order of the First Appellate Authority. Accordingly, we find that the subject Appeal does not raise any substantial question of law. The Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. - Decided against revenue. - Income Tax Appeal No. 1041 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 9-4-2015 - S. C. Dharmadhikari And A. K. Menon,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr A R Malhotra For the Respondent Rep by: Mr J D Mistri, Sr. Counsel JUDGMENT (Per A. K. Menon, J.) By thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ip firm ( RRK ) and M/s. Sanand Properties Pvt. Ltd. ( SPPL ). They have filed a return of income for the assessment year 200708 showing a total income of ₹ 4,13,610/- after claiming deduction of ₹ 14,54,47,283/under section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 143(3) and computed the total income at ₹ 14,63,04,860/- after disallowing deduction claimed under section 80IB(10). 3. The Assessee filed an Appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who held that the Assessee had fulfilled all the conditions laid down in section 80IB(10) and directed the Assessing Officer to allow the claim for deduction. 4. This order of the CIT (Appeals) was challen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctober, 2012, the Appellate Tribunal dealt with the contents of the AOP agreement and in particular clause (7) of the agreement which is reproduced at page 7 of the order of the Appellate Tribunal. The relevant extract of clause (7) is reproduced below under the heading SHARING OF REVENUE AND INCOME:- Out of the aforesaid amounts received from the purchasers of the housing units (representing the gross sale proceeds of the units inclusive of the value of land) SPPL shall be entitled to, as its share of revenue/income, an amounting comprising of 35% of such receipts. It is hereby agreed and understood between the parties hereto, that SPPL may actually withdraw such share of revenue/income to which it is entitled as per the understanding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ht of material before it, the Tribunal concluded that the CIT's interpretation of clause (7) was incorrect. According to the Tribunal, the quantum of deduction under section 80IB(10) will depend upon the income earned from the project in question. The quantum of deduction will not depend on the mode of distribution of shares amongst members of the AOP as income of AOP is taxable at the maximum marginal rate. It is also observed by the Tribunal that the allowability or otherwise of deduction under section 80IB(10) is not dependent upon the manner in which the profit has been distributed amongst the members of the AOP but depended upon the income earned from an eligible project and the fulfillment of the conditions laid down in the sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was passed by the Assessing Officer on 31st December, 2009 assessing income of the Assessee at ₹ 14,37,20,890/-. The Assessee claimed to have incurred expenses of ₹ 6,99,73,052/- for production of a film and claimed that it has earned income of ₹ 11,25,00,000/- from the film. Later on, however, the Assessee claimed before the Assessing Officer that this was not income from the production of the film, but this was a sum received as share application money from various persons. 12. The Assessing Officer did not accept this contention and considered income at ₹ 11,25,00,000/-. The Revisional Authority was aware of the fact that the Assessee had preferred an Appeal before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entitled SPPL a constituent of the Assessee to appropriate 35% sale proceeds as provided under said clause before deduction of cost of the project. According to Mr. Mistri, after SPPL appropriates its share of 35% of the sale proceeds, the balance 65% would be used by the Assessee to pay overall cost including cost of development and all the expenses for the project. Only thereafter the residual amount could be appropriated by RRK. 14. Having considering the various submissions, we are clearly of the view that the contract between the two parties was self explanatory and the interpretation placed by the Assessee on clause 7 and claiming deduction under section 80IB(10) is in order. The interpretation of one of the Assessing Officer coul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
