TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 882X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be said that the claim for deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the Act made by the assessee in its return of income was entirely wrong or false. In the instant case, the penalty was levied by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the assessee has concealed its particulars of income in respect of income of ₹ 16,65,433/-. However, it is observed that no material has been brought on record to show that the assessee has concealed its particular of income. Rather, in the instant case, the assessee disclosed the entire income and simultaneously claimed deduction of that income u/s.80IB(10) of the Act. It is not a case of concealment of income. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd.(2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8377; 16,65,43/- claimed under section 80 IB of the Act for the following reasons: The assessee had claimed deduction of ₹ 16,65,433/- u/s.80IB of the I.T.Act, 1961 in respect of its project at Patia, POChandrasekharpur and at Ghatikia, PS-Khandagiri. The assessee did not submit the breakup of sales from each unit and profits derived from it. It also did not submit the documents in claim of 80IB deductions, list of project for which 80IB claimed and no. of flats along with area in each project. Being a time barring matter, the case was disposed off on the basis of inspector's report and assessee's own admission. There were 2 flats/units in which the total built up area has exceeded 1500 sqft as mandated by the Act. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Lt., 322 ITR 158 (SC), wherein, it was held that merely because the assessee had claimed the expenditure, which claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to the revenue, that by itself would not attract the penalty u/s.271(1)(c). if the contention of the revenue is accepted then in case of every return where the claim made is not accepted then in case of every return where the claim made is not accepted by the AO for any reason, the assessee will invite penalty u/s.271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the legislature. The Tribunal, as well as, the CIT(A) and the High Court have correctly reached this conclusion . Further, it was argued that where the issue is debatable one, there cannot b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re are number of flats which are below 1500 sq.ft., and the relevant built-up area requirement is specified under Section 80IB(10)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Thus, the built-up area in some of the flats in both these projects are in excess of 1500 sq.ft., i.e., 32 flats in Agrini and only one flat in Vajra and that the assessee had not claimed any deduction on this. We hold that the Tribunal is not correct in its view, that by reason of these Units being in excess of 1500 sq.ft., the entire claim of the assessee in respect of these two projects would stand rejected under Section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act. Thus, going by the definition of housing project under Explanation to Section 80HHBA of the Act as referred to above as the constru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the Bombay High Court reported in (2012) 206 TAXMAN 584 (CIT v. Vandana Properties), which was decided by the Bombay High Court on similar lines as in the assessee's case before us. 15. In the light of the above reasoning, we have no hesitation in allowing the cases cases filed by the assessee in respect of assessment years2004- 05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09, thereby answering the substantial questions of law in favour of the assessee, that the assessee is entitled to the claim of deduction in respect of all the blocks forming part of the projects called Agrini and Vajra, but to the extent of each of the blocks satisfying the conditions under Section 80IB(10) of the Act, the assessee would be entitled to the relie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
