TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 1542X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oceeds of the stilt parking. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the A.O. on account of re-allocation of expenses as in General P L A/c. the assessee has debited expenses against the income of Saki Naka Project only, which is fully taxable. 2. The assessee is engaged in the business of development of real estate projects. Assessee has ongoing projects in hand at Poisor Sakinaka , Andheri, etc. During the course of assessment proceedings, assessee was specifically asked to submit the detail in respect of income derived from sale of stilt parking and income derived from various types of deposits received from purchases in respect of society formation an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned CIT(A). 3. The learned CIT(A) has observed that parking is part and parcel of the housing project that is the first and foremost requirement of the residents of the residential units. Therefore, it cannot be said that sale proceeds of stilt parking is outside the purview of sec.80-IB(10) of the Act. The parking are in built and approved in the residential structure of the residential building and no such separate approval are taken. The AO has not brought on record that which part of expenditure claimed to have been incurred for parking is bogus. After considering the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Brahma Associates v. JCIT, he directed the AO to allow the deduction to the assessee u/s.80IB(10) on sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT(A). 6. The other issue raised in this appeal relates to the expenses debited against income from Saki Naka project which is fully taxable. The facts of the case in brief are that during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that apart from rent, dividend or interest assessee has credited in its profit and loss account, profit from Poiser project and Saki Naka project were shown at ₹ 25,94,15,536/- and ₹ 10,16,72,553/- respectively. Further the assessee has debited several expenses against this income. However, the assessee has claimed deduction u/s.80IB @ 100% at ₹ 25,94,15,536/- i.e. entire profit of Poiser project and entire expenses are therefore debited against income from Saki Nak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the Assessing officer has also not pointed out a single instance in his order as to which expenditure was related to Poiser Project but the same was diverted to Saki Naka Project for reducing the taxable income. He has worked simply on presumption without bringing any evidence on record. On the other hand, the appellant has maintained separate books of accounts and bank account for the Poiser Project wherein no discrepancy was pointed out by the Assessing Officer. So, in the absence of any conclusive evidence and investigation done by the Assessing Officer and in view of the submission and various case laws relied upon by the appellant, I am of the view that the Assessing Officer was not justified in allocating the expenditure of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng that the assessee had maintained two separate accounts. The learned CIT(A) has given a further finding that the A.O. presumed that the assessee might have debited the expenditure relating to Poiser project to Saki Naka project to get the benefit u/s.80IB(10) because the project is fully eligible for deduction. It is a fact that the assessee has already debited expenses for Poiser project of ₹ 1,05,11,664/- and the A.O. has not pointed out any defect in the books of account submitted by the assessee. In view of the above, we find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) and uphold the same. 12. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 21st day of January, 2011. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
