TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1926X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... favour of the assessee. There is no change into facts and circumstances. Hence, this objection is also not sustained. No valid permission - A.O. of the view that when the permission from the Nagar Nigam is not valid since same has been taken before acquiring the land, since we have not sustained the objection of the A.O. that ownership of land on which project is claimed to have been undertaken, we therefore, do not find any merit into this objection of the A.O. This objection is also not sustainable. Hence, same is rejected. Disallowance u/s 14A - contention of the assessee is that the judicial pronouncement wherein it has been held that if the assessee has not earned exempt income in a particular accounting year, the resort to section 14A of the Act cannot be adopted - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the assessee had not pressed ground against invoking the provisions of section 14A of the Act. In the ordinary circumstances, the assessee would have not been given an opportunity, but in the present case where the judicial pronouncement came later to the assessee s withdrawal of the ground, we deem it proper in the interest of justice that atleast an opportunity by the Ld. CIT(A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ategorically observed by the assessing officer that the assessee had taken permission from Municipal Corporation, Bhopal on 17.1.2006. the said permission was taken in the land admeasuring area of 5.34 acres. It is noted by the A.O. that permission from Nagar Nigam was taken on 17.1.06. However, the land was acquired on 28.4.06 and 6.8.2007. Thus, the permission was taken from the Nagar Nigam even when the lands were not acquired by the assessee. It was observed by the assessing officer that the permission was in the name of the assessee for which the lands were not owned by it. Therefore, the A.O. was of the view that the permission was not validly issued. It is therefore inferred that when the permission was not validly issued, therefore completion certificate for the same would also not be validly given. Therefore, the A.O. disallowed the claim of deduction and Ld. D.R. submitted that under these facts, the A.O. was justified in disallowing the claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. Ld. Counsel for the assessee opposed the submissions and submitted that the A.O. failed to appreciate the facts in right perspective. Ld. Counsel submitted that the issue of allowability of dedu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the above discussion, we do not see any infirmity in the finding of the Ld. CIT(A). Same is hereby upheld. 6. Now we take up the revenue s appeal in ITA No.473/Ind/2015. The revenue has raised following grounds of appeal: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 2,24,27,273/- made under section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. The only effective ground is against deletion of additions made on account of disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act of ₹ 2,24,27,273/-. The facts are identical as were in ITA No.472/Ind/2015. The respective representatives of the parties have adopted the same argument as were in ITA No.472/Ind/2015. The issue of allowability of deduction has been considered in the ITA No.472/Ind/2015, wherein we have held as under: 5. We have heard rival submissions, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. Objection of the A.O. is that the assessee is not undertaking development and construction of housing projects. The assessee is not owner of the land of which project is claimed to have been undertaken. The si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 82,39,760/- in equity share/share application of these companies as on 31.3.2009 and thus net investment of ₹ 3,22,57,840/- had been made by the assessee company during the year under consideration. The assessee in the balance sheet had claimed loans and advances to the group companies on 31.3.2009 and 31.3.2010 respectively of ₹ 8,63,800/- and ₹ 1,71,87,000/-. It was further noticed that these advances have been shown under the head of Advances for purchase of land . However, during the course of assessment proceedings, it was submitted that group companies had allowed equity shares in the subsequent years against the advances given to them. Thus, the advances given to these companies were in the nature of deposits for allotment of equity shares and reflected the investment made by the assessee and not as advance given for purchase of land. It was further observed that dividend received from investment in such companies is exempt from tax. Therefore, the assessing officer while invoking provisions of section 14A of the Act computed disallowance as per rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 of ₹ 64,95,645/-. 11. Aggrieved against this order, the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
