ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 03, NEW DELHI vs. DLF LTD., NEW DELHI
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘I’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY & DR. B.R.R. KUMAR
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘I’ NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No.5940/Del/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14
Addl. CIT, Vs. DLF Ltd., Special Range-03, DLF Centre, Sansad Marg, New Delhi New Delhi PAN :AAACD3494N (Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by Sh. R.S. Singhvi, CA Sh. Satyajeet Goel, CA Respondent by Sh. Mahesh Shah, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 21.07.2022 Date of pronouncement 29.07.2022 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JM:
Captioned appeal by the Revenue arises out of order dated
27.06.2017 of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3,
Delhi, pertaining to assessment year 2013-14.
Before we proceed to deal with the issue arising in the appeal,
it is necessary to provide brief factual backdrop. The aforesaid
appeal was disposed off by the Tribunal earlier vide order dated
2 ITA No.5940/Del/2017 AY : 2013-14
10.09.2021. However, while disposing of the appeal, the Tribunal,
inadvertently, did not decide ground no. 1.
While considering a miscellaneous application filed by the
assessee for rectification of mistake, the Tribunal vide order dated
13.07.2022 in M.A. No. 202/Del/2021, recalled the order for the
limited purpose of adjudicating ground no. 1. This is how the
present appeal came up for hearing before us.
Ground no. 1 reads as under:
“1. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (appeals) erred in law and on the facts of the case in deleting the addition of Rs.1,48,27,50,299/- made by the AO on account of deduction claimed u/s 80IAB.”
We have heard Sh. R.S. Singhvi, learned counsel appearing
for the assessee and Sh. Mahesh Shah, learned Departmental
Representative.
As could be seen from the ground raised, the issue relates to
deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80IAB of the Act.
The assessee is a resident corporate entity engaged in the business
of real estate development. It is also engaged in leasing of
constructed property and wind power generation. In the return
filed for the impugned assessment year, the assessee claimed
deduction of Rs.148,27,50,299/- under section 80IAB of the Act on
3 ITA No.5940/Del/2017 AY : 2013-14
the profits earned from the Special Economic Zone (SEZ) operation.
The Assessing Officer discarding assessee’s claim disallowed the
deduction under section 80IAB of the Act on the reasoning that the
sale of bare shell and cold shell to the co-developer was not
permitted as per SEZ Act. Therefore, consideration received from
such sale is not an income entitled for deduction under section
80IAB of the Act. Additionally, the Assessing Officer held, if the
deduction under section 80IAB is allowed at a later stage, an
amount of Rs.6,57,66,000/- has to be reduced from the deduction
claimed, as, the assessee has not allocated the establishment and
other expenses to the SEZ activity. Against the aforesaid decision
of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before
learned Commissioner (Appeals).
Being convinced with the submission of the assessee and
relying upon the order passed by his predecessor in assessee’s own
case in assessment year 2009-10, learned Commissioner (Appeals)
allowed the deduction claimed by the assessee fully.
Before us, it is a common point between parties that the issue
stands squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision
of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in assessment years 2008-
09 and 2011-12.
4 ITA No.5940/Del/2017 AY : 2013-14
Having gone through the materials placed before us, we find
that identical issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by
the Tribunal in assessment year 2008-09 vide order dated
27.05.2019 passed in ITA No. 2126 & 2749/Del/2013. The
aforesaid decision of the Coordinate Bench has been subsequently
followed by the Bench while deciding assessee’s appeal in
assessmet year 2011-12 vide order dated 29.09.2020 in ITA
No.4159 & 4794/Del/2015.
Thus, respectfully following the consistent view of the
Tribunal expressed in assessee’s own case, in the orders referred
to above, we uphold the decision of learned Commissioner
(Appeals) on the issue. Ground raised is dismissed.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 29th July, 2022
Sd/- Sd/- (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) (SAKTIJIT DEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated: 29th July, 2022. RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi
