Tax Management India. Com
                        Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...

Category of Documents

TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Manuals SMS News Articles
Highlights
D. Forum
What's New

Share:      

        Home        
 

TMI Blog

Home List
← Previous Next →

2019 (5) TMI 339

OLKATA] and [2016 (3) TMI 84 - ITAT KOLKATA] allowing the claim of the assessee for deduction under section 80IB. Addition on account of cost of development - assessee had incurred substantial development cost in respect of its Housing Project “ASHIANA AMARBAGH’ undertaken in Jodhpur, Rajasthan and the said cost was allocated by the assessee to the different phases of the Project - HELD THAT:- It is observed that even the AO in his assessment order did not pinpoint any defect or deficiency in such basis or method adopted by the assessee. As contended on behalf of the assessee before the CIT(Appeals) as well as before the Tribunal, the same basis or method was adopted by the assessee for allocating the development cost even in .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

ction under section 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. The assessee in the present case is a partnership firm, which is engaged in the business of Developing and Building Housing Projects. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by it on 18.09.2013 declaring total income of ₹ 8,47,58,700/- after claiming deduction of ₹ 3,53,44,355/- under section 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The deduction was claimed by the assessee in respect of housing project undertaken under the name and style as ASHIANA AMARBAGH in Jodhpur, Rajasthan. Since the similar deduction as claimed by the assessee under section 80IB in respect of the same project was disallowed in the earlier years, the assessee during the course of as .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

laim for deduction under section 80IB as involved in the year under consideration is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the orders of the Tribunal passed in assessee s own case for A.Y. 2010-11 and 2012- 13. Copies of the said orders are placed on record and a perusal of the same shows that a similar issue relating to the assessee s claim for deduction under section 80IB in respect of profit from the Housing Project at Jodhpur namely ASHIANA AMARBAGH was decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 vide its order dated 22.01.2016 passed in ITA No. 12/KOL/2014. The said decision of the Tribunal rendered in A.Y. 2010-11 was subsequently followed by the Tribunal to decide the similar issue in favour of the asse .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

evelopment cost was considered by taking the development cost actually incurred till date plus the amount of development cost to be incurred to complete the remaining project. It was submitted that such total development cost accordingly was apportioned and charged to the each Phase of project completed and the balance amount was carried forward for the remaining Phases. This basis adopted by the assessee for allocation of the development cost to different Phases was not found acceptable by the Assessing Officer. According to him, the total development cost of ₹ 14,76,01,755/- was required to be allocated to the different Phases on the basis of saleable area and since Phase-V and phase-VI completed by the assessee during the year unde .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

llate proceedings that he has been attributing development costs on the basis of a formula which is same for periods for which he is entitled to deduction u/s 80lB & other period when his income is fully taxable without any deduction u/s 80IB. The AO has not found out any deviation from this formula for two periods when the income is exempt and when taxable. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the development cost attributed. Additionally, it is seen that the comparison done by the AO of year wise attribution of development cost is faulty because the development cost attributed for this AY i.e 2013-14, ₹ 4,95,15,098/- also includes the development cost for subsequent AY i.e 2014-15 . 10. We have heard the arguments of .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

relating to the deletion by the ld. CIT(Appeals) of the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on account of development cost is similar to the one involved in Ground No. 2 of the Revenue s appeal for A.Y. 2013-14, which has been decided by us in the foregoing portion of this order. As all the material facts relevant to this issue as involved in A.Y. 2014-15 as well as the arguments of the ld. Representatives of both the sides are similar to that of A.Y. 2013-14, we follow our conclusion drawn in A.Y. 2013-14 and uphold the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on account of development cost. 13. In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in th .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →

 

 

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || Database || Members || Refer Us ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.
|| Blog || Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||