DCIT 15(2), MUMBAI vs. DHARTI ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3687/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 December 2017AY 2007-084 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the revenue had submitted additional evidence (a letter from BMC) which was not available during the previous assessment year's appeal. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for re-appreciation of this new evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a builder and developer, claimed deduction under Section 80IB(10). The reassessment was initiated because the assessee failed to obtain an occupation certificate by the stipulated date, making them ineligible for the deduction. The assessee argued that the project was complete and the delay was due to authorities.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80IB(10) when an occupation certificate was delayed. The admissibility and re-appreciation of additional evidence submitted by the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80IB(10),Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JM & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

For Respondent: DR Assessee by :

"""" / O R D E R Per Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. The captioned appeal by revenue for Assessment Year [AY] 2007-08 assails the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-26 2 Dharti Enterprises Assessment Year 2007-08 CIT(A)], Mumbai, Appeal No. CIT(A)-26/IT-67/ACIT.15(2)/12-13 dated 21/03/2014. The assessment for impugned AY was framed by Ld. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-15(2), Mumbai [AO] u/s 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961 on 27/02/2013. The sole subject matter of the appeal is assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10).

2.

Facts leading to the same are that the assessee being resident firm engaged as builders & developers was granted deduction u/s 80IB(10) by the first appellate authority. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was subjected to reassessment proceedings since it was noted that the assessee failed to obtain occupation certificate [OC] by stipulated date of 31/03/2009 and hence, the assessee was not eligible to claim the same. The assessee contended that the project was completed in all respect by 15/03/2008 and the authorities [Bombay Municipal Corporation] delayed the issue of occupation certificate. However, not convinced, Ld. AO after perusing the statutory provisions denied the deduction to the assessee.

3.

Aggrieved the assessee contested the same with success before Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 21/03/2014 where the Ld. CIT(A) following the order of its predecessor in assessee’s own case for 2006-07 decided the issue in assessee’s favor. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us.

4.

The Ld. Departmental Representative [DR], at the outset, vide letter dated 11/08/2016, pleaded for submissions of additional evidences subsequently received by the revenue in the form of letter dated 15/12/2015

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 →