TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 757X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... using project. In such background, reference was made to the definition of term transfer under section 2(47) of the Act and held that merely because the land was held by the original owner when the housing development project was executed, would not be detrimental to the assessee's claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10). Decided against the Revenue - R/TAX APPEAL NO. 8 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 10-6-2019 - MR J. B. PARDIWALA, J. For The Appellant (s) : MR. VARUN K. PATEL (3802) For The Opponent (s) : None ORAL ORDER ( PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) 1. The Revenue has filed this appeal against the judgment of the Income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts in deleting the addition in respect of disallowance of deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act without appreciating that the Assessing Officer's action of disallowing assessee's claim of deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act, finds support from decision of (1) ITAT Chennai Bench B in the case of Prime Developers Vs. Income tax Officer Ward 1(4) Tirupur reported in (2015) 64 taxmann.com 48 (Chennai-Trib.) and (2) ITAT Chennai Bench A in the case of Arihant Heirloom vs. Income tax Officer, Non-Corporate-140(1) Chennai reported in (2017) 79 taxmann.com.19 (Chennai-Trib)? ( d) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of deducti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cting the claim of the appellant u/s 80IB(10). It has been vehemently urged by the Ld. AR that the facts of the year under reference are in no way different or distinguishable from those for A.Y. 2010-11 to A.Y. 2012-13 and therefore, I should follow my own appellant orders for those assessment years and delete the erroneous addition made by the Ld. AO. The Ld. AR also enclosed the copy of my order in appeal no. CIT(A)- 12/ CC1/ Baroda/334B, 345B, 346B/ 14-15 dated 28/10/2015 and drew my attention on para 6 of the appellate order. Having considered the material on record and having minutely perused the assessment order and the written submissions filed by the appellant, I have noted that the AR is right that the facts for the year under ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in favour of the appellant by Ahmedabad ITAT decision and my own decision in appellant's own case for AY 09-10. Thus and therefore, respectfully following the ITAT decision and my own decision in appellant's own case for AY 09-10, the AO's action of rejecting the claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) is held unwarranted and unsustainable. The appellant is held eligible for deduction u/s 80IB(10). The related additions for the three Assessment Years under reference are deleted as under: Sr. No. A.Y Relief granted 1 2010-11 ₹ 20,08,55,87 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appreciating the facts that the appellant is developing building housing projects by fulfilling all the requirements for claiming the deduction u/s 80-IB(10) of the Act. And ITAT decided matter in favour of assessee by holding below: 8. We find that in the case of Narayan Reality Ltd. (supra) the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal, after placing reliance on the various decisions cited therein decided the issue in favour of Assessee. Before us, Revenue could not point out any distinguishing feature of the present case with that of Narayan Reality Ltd. (supra) nor has brought any contrary binding decision on record in its support. In view of the aforesaid facts, we respectfully following the decision of the coordinate bench of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as also with regard to deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Act. We refer to and rely upon the observations made by the coordinate bench as under: Counsel for the Revenue candidly pointed out that in case of this very assessee for the earlier assessment year, Tax Appeals No. 1154 and 11545 of 2018 raising similar questions came to be dismissed. Following observations may be noted from the order dated 17th September 2018, dismissing such appeals. 3. The respondent is engaged in the business of housing development. For the assessment year 2010-11, the assessee had claimed deduction in respect to the income arising out of such activity under section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act. The Ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
