9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 1350X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as income from house property as against business income held by the A.O. by ignoring the decision in the case of Indian City Properties Ltd. Vs. CIT 55 ITR 262 (Cal) and also ignoring the fact that the property was held as investment and not as trading asset." 2. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to allow deduction u/s 801B(10) on the sale proceeds of the Stilt Parking, ignoring the fact that §tilt parking is not the unit mentioned u/s 80IB (10)." 3. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting addition of suppressed value of closing stock of Rs. 280,84,319/- without appreciating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arguments & submissions of Ld. Authorized Representative of the appellant along with material available on record. I find that the Assessing Officer, facts of the case and submissions of the appellant and in my view, Assessing Officer has not doubted about the ownership of the Land & Building. Since the assessee is the owner of the Land & Building and assessee has been earning Leave & License income in the preceding years also and in the preceding years, this income has been treated as rental income. and in this case also it is found that the main intention of the Assessee was to earn rental income from the letting out of the House Property only. I also find that the reliance placed by Ld Authorized Representative on the decision in the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (A) for treating the lease income as income from house property. 7. During the course of assessment, the AO has disallowed assessee's claim of deduction under Section 80IB(10). By the impugned order, The CIT(A) allowed the assessee's claim after having following observations :- "3.3 I have gone though the contents of the impugned assessment order as well as arguments & submissions of Ld. Authorized Representative of the appellant along with material available on record including the Hon'ble IT A T's orders in appellant's own case (supra). I find that parking is part & 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 procee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s own case in its favour for the assessment years 2005-06 & 2006-07 as referred by the CIT(A) in his order. Learned DR did not oppose the said decision of the ITAT in assessee's own case. In the immediately preceding A.Y. 2007-08, the Tribunal has followed the decision of earlier years having similar facts. As the facts and circumstances during the year under consideration are same, respectfully following the same, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) for allowing claim of deduction under Section 80IB(10). 9. In ground No.3, the Revenue is aggrieved for deleting the addition of suppressed value of closing stock. 10. On perusal of the record, we found that the AO has made addition in the valuation of closing stock by taking in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t on a mere doubt or a suspicion, which cannot be sustained in law. Hence, the impugned addition of Rs. 2,80,84,319/- is deleted in the facts and circumstances of the instant case." 11. We have considered rival contentions and found that the AO has wrongly added expenses of previous year to the value of closing stock without finding fault in assessee's method of valuation, which was consistently followed by it. The AO has wrongly included indirect cost of project which is not going to form part of value of work in progress. While computing value of closing stock the AO has not pointed out any particular expenses, which should have charged to closing stock and not added by the assessee to the closing stock. Accordingly, we do not find any r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the Assessing Officer was not justified In allocating the expenditure of Rs. 38,75,050/- to Poiser Project wherein expenditure of Rs. 17,26,112/- was already debited by the appellant before making re-allocation or disallowance. On perusal of Profit & Loss Account submitted regarding '0' wing of Sakinaka. Assessee has debited the expenses to the tune of Rs. 6,88,12,548/- and all these has been added to the closing stock. Therefore, addition of Rs. 81,37,369/- made by the Assessing Officer to 'D' wing of Sakinaka without pointing out any reason is not justifiable. The Assessing Officer should have pointed out the defects in the books of accounts of the appellant and the items of expenditure which were diverted for reduci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
