TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1840X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any of the conditions mentioned in the provisions of section 80IB(10) of the Act. Accordingly we have no hesitation in allowing this claim of assessee and accordingly the same is allowed. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 3252/MUM/2017 - - - Dated:- 24-10-2018 - SHRI G.S. PANNU (VP) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) For the Revenue : Shri J. Saravanan (DR) For the Assessee : Shri Nitesh Joshi, Sonakshi Jhunjhunwala (AR) ORDER PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM This appeal has been filed by the revenue against the order dated 17.02.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (for short the CIT (A) )-29, Mumbai, for the assessment year 2013-14, whereby the Ld. CIT (A) has partly allowed the appeal filed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The AO rejecting the contention of the assessee made disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80IB of the Act and determined the total income of the assessee at ₹ 70,62,34,560/-. In the first appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) decided the issue in favour of the assessee and directed the AO to allow the deduction and delete the addition. 3. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT (Appeals), the revenue has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal on the following effective ground:- 1. on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting the disallowance of ₹ 70,10,07,418/- made by the A.O. under section 80IB of the Act on account the project Mayuresh Residency t Bhandup which was not completed with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he ITAT has held that the project has been completed within the stipulated time ignoring the fact that the department has not accepted the decision and has assailed the same before the Hon ble High Court. On the basis of the aforesaid reasons, the Ld. DR submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee s project was approved on 10.09.2007 i.e. during the F.Y. 2007-08 which was required to be completed within five years from the end of the said financial year i.e. up to 31st March, 2013. In the present case, the project was completed before the due date and a certificate dated 18.03.2013 was issued by the concerned authority which was submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s taken. The relevant portion of the order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) reads as under:- 4. We find that the Revenue is not appeal against the findings of CIT (A) that assessee has not allotted more than one residential unit to any individual, or to spouse or minor children of any individual to whom any other residential unit is already allotted. Accordingly, he held that the conditions are not contravened in respect of the provisions of section 80IB(10)(e) and (f) of the Act. This finding is unchallenged and revenue is not in appeal against this finding. But, aggrieved, against the withdrawal of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act for non completion of project up to 31.3.2013, the assessee is in second appeal before Tribunal. 5. We have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and there is no violation of any of the conditions mentioned in the provisions of section 80IB(10) of the Act. Accordingly we have no hesitation in allowing this claim of assessee and accordingly the same is allowed. 7. We further notice that the Ld. CIT (A) has decided the issue involved in this case by following the decision of the coordinate Bench rendered in the assessee s own case for the A.Y. 2010-11 and 2011-12 in which the coordinate Bench has held that the assessee has completed the project within the stipulated period. The operative part of the order of the Ld. CIT (A) reads as under:- 4.3.3 Now, the appellant had filed copy of the order of the Hon ble ITAT for A.Ys. 2010-11 and 2011-12 where exactly identical issue has be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
