TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 780X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Jha Revenue by : Shri Ajay Modi, JCIT ORDER Per D. Karunakara Rao, AM There are 2 appeals filed by the assessee under consideration against the separate orders of CIT(A)-11, Pune dated 31-12-2014 and 27-07-2015 respectively for the Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13. 2. Since the issues raised by the assessee in both the appeals are identical, therefore, both the appeals were clubbed and adjudicated in this composite order. 3. For the sake of reference, we proceed to extract the grounds raised by the assessee for the A.Y. 2011-12 : 1. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of ₹ 4,24,27,370/- on account of rejection of claim for deduction of profits and gains arising from Industrial Park u/s.80IA(4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid letter the building in which industrial park is being developed by the assessee s proprietary concern which belongs to partnership firm M/s. S. Balan and Company and not to any individual. In the said letter, it was mentioned that a part of the building is being developed as industrial park and therefore AO held that the assessee is not eligible under Industrial Park Scheme, 2002. AO further held that the assessee had not taken fresh approval as required under the Industrial Park Scheme 2002. Assessee moved another application before the empowered committee seeking change in number of units in the Industrial Park from 6 to 3 units and got approval on 11-06-2012. Since the claim of the assessee was accepted by the Ld.CIT(A)-II, Pune for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. We find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A). We find the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of deduction u/s.80IA(4)(iii) on the basis of the letter dated 04-03-2009 from the under secretary in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry that the assessee was not eligible for deduction u/s.80IA(4). Further in the statement recorded during the course of survey action u/s.133A the assessee had withdrawn such claim made u/s.80IA(4). According to the Assessing Officer pendency of the review petition before the concerned authority did not make the assessee eligible for the said deduction. We find in appeal the Ld.CIT(A) after obtaining a remand report ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
