INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(5), HYDERABAD vs. NAGARJUNA HOMES, HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 793/HYD/2019Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 September 2020AY 2015-163 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The CIT(A) allowed the assessee's appeal, following a previous ITAT decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2010-11. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding it fair and reasonable.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a partnership firm engaged in real estate, claimed deduction under Section 80IB(10) for AY 2015-16. The AO denied this claim, stating the matter was sub-judice, despite the assessee having received the deduction in prior years.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80IB(10) when the AO denied it based on a sub-judice matter, despite prior allowance and a favorable ITAT precedent.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80IB(10)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCH “B”, HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD & SHRI M. BALAGANESH

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas
For Respondent: Shri Arvindakshan, Shri K.C. Devdas
Hearing: 02/09/2020Pronounced: 03/09/2020

This appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order of CIT(A) – 9, dated 31/01/2018, Hyderabad for AY 2015-16.

2.

Brief facts are that the assessee is a Partnership Firm engaged in real estate business. For the year 2015-16 assessee filed its return of income admitting income of Rs. Nil after claiming deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the IT Act, 1961 of Rs. 3,64,90,555/-. In the scrutiny assessment, the A.O. denied the assessee's claim by holding that the assessee is not eligible for deduction since the matter is sub-judice regarding deduction u/s 80IB before High Court.

3.

Aggrieved, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the first appellate authority by contending that the A.O. failed to note that the assessee's claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) was allowed for the past several years and erred in predetermining that the assessee is

4.

Ld. CIT (A) considered the submissions of the assessee and allowed the appeal by following the decision of the ITAT Hyderabad Bench in the assessee's own case (ITA No.54/Hyd/2015, dated 04.09.2015) for the A.Y. 2010-11. Aggrieved, Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal:

1. The learned C!T(A) has erred both in law and on facts of the case.

2. The learned C!T(A) should have appreciated the fact that the date of first approval i.e., 07-05-2001 should be taken as the date of approval of local authority and because it is prior to 01- 04-2004, the construction should have been completed by 31- 03-2008. However, as it was not completed by 31-032008, claim of deduction u/s 8018(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be allowed

3. Any other ground(s) that may be urged at the time of hearing.”

5.

Learned Departmental Representative relied upon the order of the AO.

6.

On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the Assessee strongly supported the decision of the Ld. CIT(A).

7.

We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We have also carefully gone through the orders passed by the Tax Authorities. While allowing the assessee's appeal, Ld. CIT(A) rightly followed the decision of the ITAT Hyderabad Bench (supra) in assessee's own case, wherein an identical issue was decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee. Therefore, we are of the view that the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is fair and reasonable and it does not call for any interference.

8.

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed.

Pronounced in the open Court on 3rd September, 2020.

More judgments on Section 80IB(10)

All 838 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80IB(10) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →