TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 640X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mr. K.K. Bissa, Mr. Gajendra Singh Chouhan ORDER This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 13.8.2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench Jodhpur (for short the ITAT ). Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, who was having land at Sriperumbudur, Chennai, entered in a joint venture with a company known as Prince Foundation Private Limited (for short the company ) to develop residential flats on the land belonging to her. According to the agreement entered in between the assessee and the company, the assessee was entitled to 20% of the super built area after completion of the project in lieu of the land offered by the assessee and her active participation in obtaining ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect. It is submitted that the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) after carefully gone through the evidence has rightly held that the assessee is not entitled for deduction under Section 80IB of the Act of 1961 as she was not at all involved in the project in any manner. Learned counsel for the appellant, thus, prayed that the impugned order passed by the ITAT may be set aside. The revenue has proposed the following substantial question of law in the matter :- Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT was justified in allowing relief of ₹ 7,95,00,000/- by holding liberal interpretation of the provisions of section 80IB of the IT Act, 1961? Heard learned counsel for the appellant and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eld in the judgment of Sharvanee Construction that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of tax under the aforesaid provisions. The contention of the assessee is fortified by the following judicial pronouncements in the case of M/s Shravanee Construction is parimateria to that of the assessee. The ration of the decision is fully and squarely applicable on the instant case of the appellant. Like in the case of M/s Shravanee Construction the appellant also actively participated in the development work and eligible for deduction u/s 80IB of the IT Act. The case of the assessee is also covered by the ratio of decision pronounced in the case of Mr. Abdul Khader, Bangalore vs ACIT on 13 April, 2012 ITA No.57/Bang/2011 in which it was held that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uilt up areas since belongings to the assessee as per the joint venture agreement, the assessee has claimed deduction only to this extent, therefore, there is no reason to decline assessee s claim for deduction with respect to her share of super built up area which amounts to ₹ 7,95,50,498/-. Furthermore, the issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon ble Karnataka High Court in case of M/s Shravanee Construction. No contrary decision was placed on record by learned AR or by any of the lower authorities so as to suggest that assessee is not entitled to deduction with respect to her share in built up area. From the above findings of the ITAT, it is clear that the assessee has actively participated in completing the project ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
