TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 637X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed and accepted under the head Income from House Property in the past, the mere fact that in the year under consideration, the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80IA in respect of notified buildings, there is absolutely no justification or basis for changing the head of income and same is self-contradictory and inconsistent. It is worthwhile to clarify that the observation of the ld. AO that the usage of terms 'profits and gains derived from such business' in section 80IA(1) means that eligible income must be assessable under the Profits or gains of Business and Profession' is irrational and misconceived as deduction is in respect of income from notified project and not head specific. It may be appreciated that that the benefit of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act is available in respect of income derived from industrial park which may be assessable under any head of income and as such the interpretation of the ld. AO is highly restrictive and contrary to the purpose and spirit of incentive provision. In fact, the bare language of the section 80IA of the Act does not even talk about any specific head of income and the entire emphasis is that the income must be derive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... above, the ground no. 3 raised by the assessee is hereby allowed. Deduction u/s 80IA in respect of amount forfeited on properties, promotion income, Miscellaneous-sale of scrap by treating the aforesaid income as Income from other sources as against the assessee s claim being eligible income eligible for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act under the head facilities management services - HELD THAT:- The aforesaid incomes have direct nexus with leasing and maintenance of the industrial park and must be construed as income derived from business and developing, operating or maintaining the industrial park which is notified by the Central Govt. We find that the lower authorities had sought to exclude the same on technical ground that such income are taxable under the head Income from other sources and as such not eligible for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. This aspect has already been addressed above wherein, it has been held that for the purpose of claim of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act, the income must be derived from such notified industrial park irrespective of head of income under which it had been taxed. Accordingly, we have no hesitation in directing the ld AO to grant dedu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e payee from where it has been categorically stated by the auditor that the payments made by the assessee constitutes business profits in terms of Article 7 of the Indo-US DTAA and in view of the fact that the payee does not have a PE in India, the assessee is not bound to deduct tax at source while making the said payment. Further, we find that the sponsorship fee paid by the assessee is related to the events carried out outside India. The payment of membership fee to overseas organization and the sponsorship fee cannot be said to accrue or earned in India in the absence of business connection with PE in India. This fact has not been controverted by the revenue before us with cogent evidences. Accordingly, we hold that the payments made by the assessee are not liable for deduction of tax at source and consequentially, the disallowance made u/s 40(a)(i) of the Act is hereby directed to be deleted. Workings of budgeted cost of construction on estimation basis for the construction project under Percentage Of Completion Method (POCM) - assessee contended before the ld CIT(A) that computation of percentage of completion and revenue recognition done by the ld AO is based on inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under the head income from business, the legal position for allowability of interest cannot be compromised. Since the borrowings have been utilized for investment in property; that the said property had yielded rental income to the assessee which had been offered to tax as income from house property and assessed as such by the ld AO, the interest paid on the aforesaid borrowings becomes fully allowable under the head income from house property itself. Hence, we direct the ld AO to allow the entire interest expenditure under the head income from house property and recompute the income accordingly. Hence, ground raised by the assessee is allowed. - Shri C. N. Prasad, Judicial Member And Shri M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri R. S. Singhvi, CA, Shri Satyajeet Goel, CA And Shri Anil Kumar, CA For the Revenue : Shri. T. James Singson, CIT DR, Shri Vivek Kumar, Upadhyay, Sr. DR ORDER PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. These are the appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue for Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2015-16 arises out of the order of CIT(A)-I, Gurgaon dated 31.03.2017, 13.09.2018, 19.03.2019. 2. Identical issues are involved ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0IA (4), under the head 'Facility Management Services'. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in upholding Signage income' ( 120,12,680) and 'Amount forfeited on property' (8,60,990) aggregating 1,28,73,670/- derived from 'Non Eligible Business' of the assessee as 'Income from Other Sources' against 'Income from House Property claimed by the assessee and thereby denying deduction u/s 24(a) of the Act. 5.1 That the Ld CIT (A), erred in upholding the issue regarding 'Signage Income, to be assessed as 'Income from Other Sources', without distinguishing the order of his predecessor, for the AY 2010-11, wherein held to be assessable as 'Income from House Property'. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in upholding the manner of allocation of expenses to eligible and non- eligible income without any cogent reason while computing the income eligible for deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act, at Page 62-63 of the assessment order. 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in law in upholding the order of Assessing Officer in bringing to tax a sum of 41,09,179 on account of 'Pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it approached the Govt. of India for approval of the same. The assessee company has been granted approval as Developer by the Department of Commerce (EPZ Section), Ministry of Commerce Industry, Government of India vide Approval Letter F 2/126/2006-EPZ dated 25.10.2006 for setting up an IT/ITES Special Economic Zone in Sector 24 25A, DLF Cyber City, Gurgaon, Haryana. The land was notified in the Gazette of India vide Notification No. 5.O. 580(E) dated 13.04.2007 wherein it was stated that the Central Government is satisfied that the requirements under sub-section (8) of section 3 of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 and other related requirements are fulfilled and the approval is granted for development and operation of the sector specific Special Economic Zone for Information Technology (IT) and Information Technology Enabled Services (ITES) at the said place in Gurgaon in the State of Haryana. In the notification, land admeasuring 10.73 hectares was notified giving the details of Khasra Nos. etc. The authorized operations in respect of IT and ITES Special Economic Zone proposed to be developed by the assessee were approved by the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee company is able to develop IT/ITES SEZ in compliance of SEZ Act, Rules, various approvals for generating economic activity of world class office space infrastructure for e.g. Compound Wall, Roads with Street Lighting, Water Treatment Plant, Sewage Lines, Storm Water Drains, Water Supply Lines. Affluent treatment plant and pipelines and other infrastructure for affluent treatment, Horticulture, Green Bells, Land Scaping to units. 9. During the course of assessment proceedings, pursuant to the queries raised by the Ld. AO, the assessee also sought clarification from the Board of Approvals. The Board of Approvals have again clarified that the sale of bare shell buildings by the developer to the co-developer and lease of land is as per SEZ Act. These clarifications were also filed during the course of assessment proceedings. As per the accounting policy consistently followed by the assessee has recognized revenue from SEZ Project at ₹ 441.40 Crores and after considering the cost at ₹ 64.25 Crores, the resulting profit worked out to 377.15 Crores for the year under consideration. The assessee has accordingly claimed the deduction u/s 80IAB of the Income Tax Act wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e from House Property' in the preceding years. Further, in the year under consideration also, the lease income from non-notified buildings was considered under the head Income from House property . The factual position to this effect has duly been acknowledged by the ld. AO at Page 47 Para 8.4 of his assessment order. 11. The ld. AO classified the rental income and treated the rental income from notified buildings under the head Profits or gains from business and profession as against income from house property thereby resulting in adjustment of claim of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. The ld AR submitted that the ld AO had accepted the taxation of lease income earned from non- SEZ buildings under the head income from house property and dispute is only with reference to lease income from SEZ buildings as notified u/s 80IA of the Act. The ld AR submitted that the identity, nature and character of SEZ as well as non-SEZ buildings are same and that the lease agreements in respect of these buildings are continuing from preceding years. Due deduction of tax at source was made u/s 194I of the Act and reflected in Form 26AS of the assessee. The ld. AR submitted that nature an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... group concern of the assessee in ACIT vs DLF Assets Ltd in ITA No. 8524, 8525, 8526/Del/2019 for AYs 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 dated 05.05.2022. The relevant operative portion of the said order is reproduced as under:- 11. We have heard the rival contentions, gone through the impugned orders and the material available on record. We find that only dispute in appeal is, whether the assessment of lease income from commercial space in SEZ, should be taxed under the head Income from house property or as business income . In so far as the same is liable for deduction u/s 80IAB is not a dispute as admittedly it is an approved activity under SEZ Act and also approved SEZ project. The only dispute which has been raised by the AO is that the lease income should be considered under the head profits gains from business profession and not as Income from House Property . It is also not in dispute that this is the second year and in first year, this issue had come up for consideration in AY 2012-13 (supra) where the Tribunal has accepted the claim of the assessee. Not only that, even the Department in AYs 2017-18 2018-19 vide assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 12 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spect of profits gains derived from an undertaking from any business of SEZ. Here, phrase includes where the gross total income of assessee being a developer includes any profits gains derived by any undertaking or an enterprise from any business of developing a Special Economic Zone..... , has to be seen in the context, whether the income which has been derived is from the approved activities under the SEZ Act. The term business of development economic zone has to be understood in the context of authorized operation as approved by Board of Approval under the SEZ Act keeping in mind the overriding effect of SEZ Act on Income Tax Act as per section 51 of that Act. In such a situation, what is relevant is the claim of deduction and not the head of income, because the only requirement is that income must be derived from business of developing of SEZ which may fall under any head of income. 15. In this regard, we have to see earning of lease rentals from such activities otherwise fall under the head Income from House Property For that, we will refer to certain legal principles as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court (as taken from head notes) as under :- a. Raj Dad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... parties, it was clear that primary object was to let out portion of said property with additional right of using furniture and fixtures and other common facilities for which rent was being charged from month to month and, therefore, income derived from said property was income from property which should be assessed as such - Held, yes c. East India Housing and Land Development Trust ltd. v. CIT [1961] 42 ITR 49 (SC) Section 22 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [corresponding to section 9 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922] Income from house property :- Chargeable as - Assessment year 1953-54 - Whether income derived by assessee company from tenants of shops and stalls was income received from property falling under section 9 of 1922 Act and character of that income could not be altered merely because assessee company had been formed with object of setting up and developing landed properties and markets - Held, yes. 15. Thus, income earned from lease rentals for renting out a property per se, ostensibly falls under the head 'income from house property', unless it is shown that there was some systematic activity falling into the nature of business. Whence, the lease rent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction quantified under Section 80-IA is Rs. 492,78,60,973/-. To make it clear, the said amount represents the net profit made by the Assessee from the 'eligible business' covered under sub-section (4), i.e., from the Assessee's business unit involved in generation of power. The claim of the Assessee is that in computing its 'total income', deductions available to it have to be set-off against the 'gross total income', while the Revenue contends that it is only the 'business income' which has to be taken into account for the purpose of setting- off the deductions under Sections 80-IA and 80-IB of the Act. To illustrate, the 'gross total income' of the Assessee for the assessment year 2002-03 is less than the quantum of deduction determined under Section 80- IA of the Act. The Assessee contends that income from all other heads including 'income from other sources', in addition to 'business income', have to be taken into account for the purpose of allowing the deductions available to the Assessee, subject to the ceiling of 'gross total income'. The Appellate Authority was of the view that there is no limitation on ded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e hold that the scope of subsection (5) of Section 80- IA of the Act is limited to determination of quantum of deduction under sub-section (1) of Section 80-IA of the Act by treating 'eligible business' as the 'only source of income. Sub-section (5) cannot be pressed into service for reading a limitation of the deduction under sub-section (1) only to 'business income'. An attempt was made by the learned Senior Counsel for the Revenue to rely on the phrase 'derived... from' in Section 80-IA (1) of the Act in respect of his submission that the intention of the legislature was to give the narrowest possible construction to deduction admissible under this sub-section. It is not necessary for us to deal with this submission in view of the findings recorded above. For the aforementioned reasons, the Appeal is dismissed qua the issue of the extent of deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act. 17. Thus, the ratio and principle of Hon'ble Supreme Court is that, while computing the deduction, what is required to be seen is that the only source of income derived from eligible business, is eligible for deduction and same cannot be limited to only business i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e built-up space, the assessee is only turning into account it's investment in the house property, being a building and land appurtenant thereto. It is, in fact, this the construction of a building suitable for the firms operating in the IT sector, that qualifies it as a developer of an Info-park, approved as a SEZ. That the said activity, i.e. developing real estate and leasing it, which is, broadly speaking, and in common parlance, only a business, is not regarded as so for the purpose of assessment of income there-from, being derived from a house property, a defined source of income for which a specific head of income is provided under the Act, is another matter. This is so even where it is carried in an organized manner, ie., as a business, as in the present case. It shall, however, not cease, for that reason, to be profits and gains derived from the activity of developing a SEZ. The word 'business' - even otherwise a word of wide and indefinite import, as occurring in section 80-IAB(1), is to be, accordingly, construed in a broad rather than a strict sense, as conveying the gamut of activities, including activities subservient and incidental to developing a SEZ and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion u/s 80IAB. Accordingly, the order of the Id. CIT (A) is confirmed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2013- 14 is dismissed. 13. It is not in dispute that the assessee had furnished the Chartered Accountant Certificates in Form 10CCB for claiming deduction u/s 80IA of the Act and that these certificates are enclosed together with detailed workings thereon in pages 66 to 76 of the paper book. It is also pertinent to note that the similar stand taken by the assessee in AY 2017-18 was accepted by the ld. AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A) 143(3B) of the Act dated 30.03.2021. In fact similar query was raised by the ld AO during the course of assessment proceedings for AY 2017-18 and assessee gave a detailed reply and after considering the said replies, the ld AO had accepted the stand of the assessee. The evidence in this regard is enclosed in pages 99 to 127 of the paper book. Similarly, the claim of the assessee for AYs 2018-19 and 2020-21 were accepted by the ld AO in the scrutiny proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act. For AY 2019-20, the case of the assessee was not selected for scrutiny. Hence, respectfully following the aforesaid decision of this tribunal and also the subsequen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct identify the locations and provide space for signage at the atrium/floor occupied by the LESSEE, as approved by the architect and the LESSEE will the allowed to put signage on such location. All taxes including service tax, duties, rates, cesses, costs and charges relating to the signage payable to the concerned authorities shall be borne and paid by LESSEE. 11. The ld. CIT (A) also relied upon the decision rendered by the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in case cited as Manpreet Singh vs. ITO (2015) 53 taxmann.com 244 (ITAT Delhi) wherein it was held that, the income earned by the assessee for renting of terrace for installation of mobile antenna was taxable as 'income from house property' and as such deduction w/s 24(a) @ 30% of the annual value was allowable. 12. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that when it is not in dispute that the assessee company has derived the signage income from the tenants from the space owned by the assessee company and not from the outsiders as it allowed tenants to use the space at the atrium/ different floors for putting signage, the signage income has to be treated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al income, the same is squarely covered and would qualify for. deduction u/s 80IA (4) (iii) of the Act. In this context, the bonafide of the appellant needs to be appreciated from the fact that the total income on account of amount forfeited on properties aggregates to Rs. 71,13,570 but the appellant has only claimed deduction w/s 80IA to the extent of Rs. 62,52,580 as the balance amount Rs. 8,60,990 has been included in the other income not qualifying for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. b. Promotional Income - The company permits entities, other than leased Industrial and Commercial Units to promote products/services etc. in the common facility area and charges them for the same. In other words, it is indirectly rental income charged for using the common facility area, ie, part of 15% residual area, referred to above. In this context, it needs to be noted and appreciated that of the total income earned Rs. 1,15,20,787, only income amounting to Rs. 99,40,252, has been considered attributable to Facility Management Services income qualifying for deduction w/s 80IA and the balance amount Rs. 15,80,535 has been shown as Other Business Income. Therefore, in terms of the In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the assessee as Income from other sources as against Income from house property claimed by the assessee and thereby denying deduction u/s 24(a) of the Act. 21. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that this issue is no longer res intgra in view of the decision of this tribunal in assessee s own case for AY 2009-10 in ITA No. 6124/Del/2016 dated 21.06.2019, wherein, it was held as under:- 5.0 We have considered the rival submissions and gone through the material placed on record. The limited issue in hand is regarding head of income under which the signage income is taxable. We find that identical issue has been decided by the Co- ordinate bench of ITAT in ITA No. 4742/D/15 vide order dated 02.01.2019 in assessee s own case relating to AY 2010-11 wherein it was held that signage derived by the assessee is assessable under the head 'Income from House Property'. The relevant finding is as under: 10. AO treated the signage income received by the assessee company from tenants income from other sources' rather than income from house property and thereby made disallowance of deduction u/s 24(a) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AT in AY 2010-11 and respectfully following the same, we hereby accept the claim of the assessee and direct the assessing officer to allow the benefit of statutory deduction of Rs. 4,50,000/- u/s 24 in confirmation with order of ITAT for AY 2010-11. Accordingly, this Ground of appeal is allowed. 22. Similarly, in AY 2010-11 this Tribunal in ITA No. 4742/Del/2015 dated 02.01.2019 had taken identical view. Respectfully following the same, we allow ground No. 5 raised by the assessee. 23. Ground No. 6 raised by the assessee is challenging the action of the ld. AO in allocation of expenses to eligible and non-eligible income without any cogent reason while computing the income eligible for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. 24. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is not in dispute that the assessee has placed on record the audit certificate in Form 10CCB for supporting the claim of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act together with the detailed workings thereon. The direct expenses incurred have been allocated between the eligible and non eligible units on actual basis and indirect expenses have been apportioned between these units in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere it has been categorically stated by the auditor that the payments made by the assessee constitutes business profits in terms of Article 7 of the Indo-US DTAA and in view of the fact that the payee does not have a PE in India, the assessee is not bound to deduct tax at source while making the said payment. Further, we find that the sponsorship fee paid by the assessee is related to the events carried out outside India. Further, the payment of membership fee to overseas organization and the sponsorship fee cannot be said to accrue or earned in India in the absence of business connection with PE in India. This fact has not been controverted by the revenue before us with cogent evidences. Accordingly, we hold that the payments made by the assessee are not liable for deduction of tax at source and consequentially, the disallowance made u/s 40(a)(i) of the Act is hereby directed to be deleted. 28. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 3692/Del/2017 for AY 2011-12 is partly allowed. ITA No. 1451/Del/2018 AY 2012-13 (Revenue s appeal) 29. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 1451/Del/2018 for AY 2012-13:- 1. Ld. CIT(A) err ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -12 from development of SEZ activities as it has stated that it has shown excess revenue of Rs. 4118.20 crores whereas it should have been Rs. 3968.63 till 31.03.2012. The assessee filed comparative POCM chart from FYs 2008-09 to 2013-14 which is tabulated at pages 38-39 of the order of ld CIT(A). The ld AO computed margin for the year at Rs. 101 crores after reworking recognition of revenue together with the budgeted cost thereon in a separate chart tabulated at pages 40 to 41 of the order of the ld CIT(A). Since, the assessee had derecognized revenue of Rs. 175.83 crores, the ld AO disallowed the excess claim of Rs. 74.83 crores in the assessment. 32. The assessee contended before the ld CIT(A) that computation of percentage of completion and revenue recognition done by the ld AO is based on incorrect figures taken in the assessment order. The assessee pointed out the incorrect figures taken by the ld AO before the ld CIT(A) which was accepted by the ld CIT(A). This factual finding given by the ld CIT(A) is not controverted by the revenue before us. The various factual mistakes committed by the ld AO are listed out at pages 45-46 of the order of the ld CIT(A). Pursuant to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r 2011-12, on this issue, the Ld. CIT(A), has directed the Assessing Officer to verify the facts and allow the claim accordingly. 2.3 That the Ld. CIT(A), has given the findings, without considering the submissions of the appellant, in as much as, the exclusion of the income on account of Costing Recovery , is contrary to his own findings of restoring the income excluded by the Assessing Officer. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in upholding the order of the Assessing Officer in excluding Signage income amounting to ₹ 3,51,85,482 from the 'Eligible Income' qualifying for deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act. 3.1 That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in upholding the order of Ld. Assessing Officer in assessing Signage income under the head 'Income from Other Sources as against 'Income from House Property, and denying deduction u/s 24(a) of the Act. 3.2 That the Ld. CIT (A), erred in upholding the issue, without distinguishing the order of his predecessor, for the AY 2010-11, wherein signage income held to be assessable as 'Income from House Property'. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in upholding the inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ouse property . 38. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. The ld AO had denied relief u/s 80IA of the Act in the income in the form of costing recovery . It was submitted by the ld AR before us that the ld AO had accepted the very same claim for AY 2011-12 while passing appeal effect order dated 23.02.2018. It is not in dispute that the assessee had categorized the income in nature of costing recovery as facility management services . We have already held that the income in the form of facility management service would be liable for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act irrespective of head of income in which it is offered to tax by the assessee. In simple terms, the income in the nature of costing recovery is nothing but recovery of charges towards maintenance and allied services which could be ascertained only at the end of the year and hence, they form intrinsic part of the facility management services . Accordingly, ground Nos. 2.2 and 2.3 raised by the assessee are allowed. 39. Ground Nos. 3 to 5.1 raised by the assessee for AY 2012-13 are identical with those raised for AY 2011-12 and hence, the decision rendered by us her ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee submitted revised computation and revised financial statements for AY 2012-13. As per the revised statement, the assessee reduced its gross total income from Rs. 153.23 crores to Rs. 80.95 cores. The ld AO asked the assessee to correlate the borrowed funds of non SEZ unit of M/s. Caraf Builders and Construction Pvt. Ltd with the investment made. The assessee filed the requisite details thereon. Pursuant to the merger, the value of assets, corresponding borrowings and consequential interest in the hands of the merged non SEZ unit of M/s. Caraf Builders and Construction Pvt. Ltd were accounted for, by the assessee company. It is not in dispute that non- SEZ unit of M/s. Caraf Builders and Construction Pvt. Ltd made borrowings for the purpose of purchase of building in order to earn rental income from the said building. The total interest expenditure on such borrowings was Rs. 72.27 crores. However, post merger, the net effective claim of interest expenditure pertained to the unit was only Rs. 66.11 crores, out of which, the assessee bifurcated and claimed Rs. 29.02 crores against rental income assessed under the head Income from house property and balance amount of Rs. 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1. That the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) is bad in law on facts and in the circumstances of the case. 2. That on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law, in upholding the order of the AO, that the income from eligible unit(s) in 'Industrial Park', qualifying for deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act, is 'Profit and Gains of Business' and not 'Income from House Properly, as shown and claimed by assessee, by misinterpreting various decisions relied upon by him and, at the same time, neither considering facts of the case nor distinguishing the decisions relied upon by the appellant. 2.1 That the Ld. CIT (A) in gross violation of judicial discipline and equity has erred in not considering the ratio laid down by the Apex Court 'that where two views are possible, one favorable to assessee is to be followed. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in upholding the order of the Assessing Officer in excluding Signage income amounting to Rs. 3.73,49.515 from the 'Eligible income' qualitying for deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act. 3.1 That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in upholding the ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing. 48. Ground Nos. 1 and 8 raised by the assessee are general in nature and does not require any specific adjudication. 49. Ground Nos. 2 to 5.1 raised by the assessee for AY 2013-14 are identical to ground Nos. 2 to 5.1 raised for AY 2011-12. Hence, the decision rendered by us herein above for AY 2011-12 qua ground No. 2 to 5.1 shall apply mutatis mutandis for AY 2013-14 also, except with variance in figures. 50. Ground No. 6 raised by the assessee for AY 2013-14 was stated to be not pressed by the ld AR at the time of hearing. The same is reckoned as a statement made from the Bar and accordingly ground No. 6 raised by the assessee is hereby dismissed as not pressed. 51. Ground No. 7 raised by the assessee for AY 2013-14 is identical with ground No. 6 raised by the assessee for AY 2012-13. Hence, the decision rendered by us hereinabove for AY 2012-13 qua ground No. 6 shall apply mutatis mutandis for AY 2013-14 also, except with variance in figures. 52. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 7407/Del/2018 for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed. ITA No. 4864/Del/2015 (AY 2014-15) 53. The assessee has raised the following grounds of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ge income Rs. 1,02,65,499 derived from 'Non-Eligible Business of the assessee as 'Income from Other Sources' against income from House Property' claimed by the assessee and thereby denying deduction u/s 24(a) of the Act (Rs 30,79,650). 5.1 That the Ld. CIT (A), erred in upholding 'Signage Income', to be assessed as 'Income from Other Sources', without distinguishing the order of his predecessor, for AY 2010-2011 and appreciating that ITAT Delhi Bench. New Delhi has upheld the order of CIT(A), dismissing the departmental appeal for AY 2010-11, wherein 'Signage Income, held to be assessed as 'Income from House Property'. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in upholding the income derived from Non-eligible Business' of the assessee as 'Promotional Income (Rs. 5,19,375) and 'Sale of scrap/others' (Rs. 3,60,40,978) aggregating Rs. 3.65.60.353 as 'Income from Other Sources' as against appellant's claim under the head 'Profit and Gains of Business'. 7. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in upholding the order of Ld. Assessing Officer in disallowing the claim of the appellant of inter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessed as 'Income from Other Sources', without distinguishing the order of his predecessor, for AY 2010-2011 and appreciating that ITAT Delhi Bench, New Delhi has upheld the order of CIT(A), dismissing the departmental appeal for AY 2010-11, wherein 'Signage Income', held to be assessed as 'Income from House Property'. 4 That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in upholding 'Signage Income Rs. 1.69.98.912 derived from 'Non-Eligible Business of the assessee as 'Income from Other Sources' against 'Income from House Property' claimed by the assessee and thereby denying deduction u/s 24(a) of the Act (Rs 50,99,674), 4.1 That the Ld. CIT (A), erred in upholding 'Signage Income', to be assessed as 'Income from Other Sources', without distinguishing the order of his predecessor, for AY 2010-2011 and appreciating that ITAT Delhi Bench. New Delhi has upheld the order of CIT(A). dismissing the departmental appeal for AY 2010-11, wherein 'Signage Income, held to be assessed as 'Income from House Property'. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in upholding the order of Ld. Assessing Officer in disallowing the cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
