INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 7(3), PUNE vs. RAMESH VITTHAL GALANDE AND OTHERS, PUNE

The only grievance raised in the present appeals is against the denial of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟).

Briefly stated, the facts for the assessment year 2011-12 are that the assessee, at material time, was engaged in the business as developer and builder and had constructed a residential project called “La Gloriosa‟ at Vadgaon Sheri, Pune. Deduction was claimed u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. The AO observed in para 4 of the assessment order for the A.Y. 2011-12 that in the proceedings relating to the preceding year for the A.Y. 2010-11, he had disallowed the assessee‟s claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act amounting to Rs.3.05 crore and odd on the ground that the assessee did not complete the entire project before the stipulated period. Another factor which was taken note of was that of the partial completion of the project. Swayed by the reasons given for the preceding assessment year, the AO did not grant deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act for the years under consideration as well. The ld. CIT(A) overturned the assessment orders by observing that the Tribunal has accepted the assessee‟s claim qua the assessment year 2010-11. The Revenue is aggrieved by the allowance of deduction Ramesh V. Galande

We have heard the ld. DR and gone through the relevant material on record. There is no appearance from the side of assessee. From the material available on record, it is seen that the AO denied the benefit of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act on the grounds similar to those of the assessment year 2010-11. The matter for such an earlier year came up for consideration before the Pune Benches of Tribunal in ITA No.1909/PUN/2014. Vide order dated 03.03.2017, the Tribunal has accepted the assessee‟s claim and allowed the claim u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. Since the facts and circumstances of the instant appeals are mutatis mutandis similar to those of the assessment year 2010-11, respectfully following the precedent, we uphold the impugned orders on this score.

In the result, the appeals are dismissed.

The CIT(A), Pune-5, Pune

The Pr.CIT, Pune-4, Pune 5. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण, पुणे “ए” / DR „A‟, ITAT, Pune; 6. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशधिपसधर/ BY ORDER, //// Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune