MALAY SANGHAVI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

The present set of appeals filed both by the assessee and the revenue for AYs: 2009-10 and 2010-11 are directed against the respective orders passed by the CIT(A)-18, Mumbai, which in itself arises from the order passed by the A.O under Sec. 143(3) and under Sec. 271(1)(c) for AY 2009-10 AND the order passed by the A.O under Sec. 143(3) for AY 2010-11. That as certain common issues are involved in the aforementioned appeals, therefore, they are being taken up and disposed of by way of a consolidate order. We shall first take up the appeal filed by the revenue against the order passed by the CIT(A) for AY 2009-10, allowing the appeal of the assessee against the assessment framed by the A.O under Sec. 143(3). The revenue assailing the order of the CIT(A) had raised before us the following grounds of appeal:- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in allowing deduction u/s. 80IB(4) of Rs.41,65,688/- without appreciating the findings by the A.O for restricting the same to Rs.12,03,773/-.

The revenue being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide its order dated 08.01.2014 concluded that the A.O was justified to apply the provisions of sub-section (10) of Section 80IA of the ‘Act’ to redetermine the profit, as the profit shown by the eligible unit of the P a g e | 4 Shri Malay N. Shanghvi Vs. ITO assessee at Jammu was found to be abnormally high. Thus, the Tribunal on the basis of its observations upheld the order of the A.O restricting the claim of the assessee towards deduction under Sec. 80IB at Rs.12,03,773/-. The Miscellaneous application filed by the assessee under Sec. 254(2) of the ‘Act’ was also dismissed by the Tribunal, vide its order dated 19.09.2014 passed in M.A. No. 300/Mum/2014.

Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the order passed by the Tribunal under Sec. 254(1), dated 08.01.2014, before the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay. The Hon’ble High Court after deliberating at length on the facts of the case, viz. (i) that nothing was available on record which could go to indicate that there was any arrangement between the eligible unit of the assessee at Jammu and the unit owned by his wife at Valsad, viz. M/s Umargaum Industries, to generate more than ordinary profits or facilitate transfer of goods and/or services interse, below the market price, resulting in inflated profits to the eligible unit of the assessee at Jammu; and (ii) that nothing had been shown by the revenue that any business was transacted between the eligible unit of the assessee at Jammu and his wifes unit at Valsad, viz. Umbergaum Industries, which resulted in inflating of the profits being earned by the assessee, or that there was any such transaction between them. The High Court in the backdrop of its aforesaid observations concluded that the Tribunal without considering the validity of the observations arrived at by the CIT(A), had adopted the test of common customers of both the eligible unit of the assessee at Jammu and his wifes Unit at Valsad, viz. Umargaum Industries, to conclude that the profit of the assessee was inflated. The High Court after deliberating on the facts of the case, therein observed that common customers by itself, in the absence of some arrangement P a g e | 5 Shri Malay N. Shanghvi Vs. ITO between the parties would not indicate transfer of profits to the assessees unit at Jammu. The High Court being of the view that the Tribunal had failed to consider the factual findings of the CIT(A), therefore, set aside the order of the Tribunal and restored the same to its file for reconsideration, after according an appropriate interpretation to Sec. 80IB(8) and 80IB(10) of the ‘Act’.

The ld. Departmental Representative (for short ‘D.R’) in the course of the hearing of the appeal heavily relied on the order passed by the A.O. and averred that in the backdrop of the facts involved in the case, the entitlement of the assessee under Sec. 80IB(4) was rightly restricted by him to Rs.12,03,773/-. The ld. D.R. in order to buttress his aforesaid contention, therein took us through the observations of the CIT(A) recorded at Page 8 – Para 2.2 of his order, and submitted that the first appellate authority had wrongly concluded that there was no arrangement between the eligible unit of the assessee at Jammu and his wifes unit at Valsad, viz. Ubergaum Industries. The ld. D.R in order to drive home his aforesaid contention drew our attention to Page 2-3 of the order passed by the A.O, wherein the latter had observed that both the assessee and his sister concern, viz. M/s Umergaum Industries which was owned by his wife Smt. Bharti Sanghvi, had at the same rate made sales to their main common buyer, i.e. M/s Kimberly Clark Hygiene Product Pvt. Ltd. The ld. D.R. further drew our attention to the fact that the cost of material, administration, selling and other expenses and notional expense of depreciation in both the aforesaid concerns were also very much in the same range. The ld. D.R on the basis of his aforesaid submissions averred that now when all the facts pertaining to both of the aforesaid concerns remained the same, therefore, it was beyond comprehension that the assessee could have maintained the profit at 35% even after

We have heard the authorized representatives for both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities, the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay and the material available on record. We have deliberated at length on the facts of the case and find that the A.O had observed that both the assessee and his sister concern, viz. Umargaum Industries were found to be similarly placed for multiple reasons, viz. (i) that both the concerns were carrying on the similar business of manufacturing of liquid soap materials; (ii) the cost of material, administration, selling and other expenses, depreciation etc, of both the concerns were very much in the same range; and (iii) that both the concerns were carrying out sales at the same rates to their main common customer, viz. M/s Kimberly Clark Hygiene Product Pvt. Ltd. The A.O after deliberating on the aforesaid facts which were common to both the aforesaid concerns, therein concluded that the P a g e | 7 Shri Malay N. Shanghvi Vs. ITO profit rate of 35% shown by the assessee even after incurring the additional cost of transportation, when pitted as against the net profit rate of 5% shown by his sister concern, viz. M/s Umargaum Industries, was beyond comprehension. We find that the A.O merely on the basis of the aforesaid comparable analysis had rushed to conclude that the net profit shown by the assessee when pitted against that of his sister concern, viz. Umargaum Industries, was found to be substantially excessive, had thus, prompted by the said fact concluded that the net profit of 5% over and above the profit rate of 5% shown by the sister concern, viz. Umargaum Industries, could safely be held to be the reasonable net profit in the hands of the assessee. We find that the A.O on the basis of his aforesaid observations had restricted the profit of the assessee from his eligible unit at Jammu to 10%, as against 35% claimed by him. We find that when the matter came up before the CIT(A), the latter was not persuaded to be in agreement with the basis on which the A.O had restricted the claim of the assessee towards deduction under Sec. 80IB(4). We find that the CIT(A) being of the view that now when it was a matter of record that neither any arrangement between the assessee and his sister concern, viz. Umargaum Industries was proved to be in existence, on the basis of which it could gathered that the assessee had generated more profits as against the ordinary profits, nor there had been a transfer of any goods or services below the market value of such goods or services, therefore, neither of the conditions contemplated under Sec. 80IA(8) and 80IA(10) were satisfied, which thus clearly excluded the applicability of the aforesaid statutory provisions to the case of the assessee. We find that the CIT(A) being of the considered view that as nothing was brought on record by the A.O to warrant application of Sec. 80IA(8) and 80IA(10) to the facts of the case involved in the case of the present assessee, therefore, deleted the P a g e | 8 Shri Malay N. Shanghvi Vs. ITO disallowance of the assessee’s claim of deduction under Sec. 80IB(4) by the A.O.

We find that our indulgence in the present case is restricted to adjudicating the validity of the entitlement of the assessee towards claim of deduction under Sec. 80IB(4), in the backdrop of the provisions of Sec. 80IA(8) and 80IA(10). We have deliberated at length on the provisions of Sec. 80IA(8) and find that the same contemplates that where any goods or services which are held by an assessee for the purpose of an eligible business are transferred to any other business carried on by him or vice versa, and the consideration, if any, for such transfer as recorded in the accounts of the eligible business does not correspond to the market value of such goods or services on the date of the transfer, then, for the purpose of quantification of the deduction, the profit and gains of such eligible business shall be computed as if the transfer in either case, had been made at the market value of such goods or services as on that date. We find that in the case before us, it had never been the case of the revenue that the assessee had transferred any goods held by him for the purpose of his eligible business to any other business carried on by him, or vice- versa, for a consideration which did not correspond to the market value of the goods as on the date of the transfer, nor any such factual position emerges from the orders of the lower authorities and the record available before us, therefore, the very applicability of the aforesaid statutory provision, viz. Sec. 80IA(8), as had been referred to by the A.O in the body of the assessment order is clearly ousted. We thus in the backdrop of our aforesaid observations hold that the provisions of Sec. 80IA(8) are not at all applicable to the case of the present assessee.

We shall now take up the appeal of the assessee for AY 2009-10, which is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A)-18, Mumbai, confirming the penalty imposed by the A.O under Sec. 271(1)(c) of the ‘Act’. The assessee assailing the order of the CIT(A) had raised before us the following grounds of appeal:-

Your appellant respectfully submits that on facts and in law the levy of penalty is unjustified and it may please be deleted.

The assessee has assailed before us the order of the CIT(A) upholding the penalty of Rs.9,63,200/- imposed by the A.O under Sec 271(1)(c) of the ‘Act’. We find that the A.O had imposed penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) on account of scaling down of the entitlement of the assessee towards claim of deduction under Sec. 80IB of Rs.41,71,838/-, as raised by the assessee in his return of income, to Rs.12,03,773/- as was determined by the A.O in the assessment framed in the hands of the assessee. We are of the considered view that as we have already upheld the order of the CIT(A), and therein set aside the restricting of the entitlement of the assessees claim of deduction under Sec. 80IB to Rs.12,03,773/- by the A.O, as against the claim raised by the assessee under the aforesaid statutory provision of Rs.41,71,838/-, while dismissing the appeal of the revenue for the year under consideration, viz. AY: 2009-10 in therefore, the very basis for the imposition of P a g e | 12 ITA Nos. 151,5682,6265,6463/Mum/2012,2013,2017 Shri Malay N. Shanghvi Vs. ITO penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) does not survive. We thus in terms of our aforesaid observations set aside the penalty of Rs.9,63,000/- imposed by the A.O under Sec. 271(1)(c) of the ‘Act’.

The appeal of the assessee is allowed. AY: 2010-11 13. We shall now take up the appeal of the assessee which is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A)-18, Mumbai for AY: 2010-11, which in itself arises from the order passed by the A.O under Sec. 143(3), dated 12.03.2013. The assessee assailing the order of the CIT(A) had raised before us the following grounds of appeal:-

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee had filed his return of income on 30.09.2010, declaring total income at Rs. 3,77,450/-. The return of income filed by the assessee was processed as such under Sec. 143 (1) of the ‘Act’. The case of the assessee was thereafter taken up for scrutiny assessment under Sec. 143(2). That during the course of the assessment proceedings it was gathered by the A.O that as per information received from the sales tax authorities, the assessee had booked bogus purchases and obtained P a g e | 13 Shri Malay N. Shanghvi Vs. ITO accommodation bills aggregating to Rs.23,59,675/- from the following parties:- S. No. Name of the party Amount (Rs.) 1. Vaishali Enterprises 10,37,479/- 2. Moksh Trading company 2,53,344/- 3. M.R. Corporation 51,509/- 4. Magnum Enterprises 3,25,728/- 5. Ramdev Trading 3,01,600/- 6. Smartlink Tradex Private Ltd. 2,71,440/- 7. Ambika Tade Impex 79,991/- Total 23,59,675/- The A.O called upon the assessee to prove the genuineness and veracity of the purchases claimed to have been made from the aforesaid parties, by placing on record documentary evidence, viz. delivery challans etc, as well as produce the said parties for examination before him, failing which the purchases claimed to have been made from them were to be held as bogus purchases. The assessee in compliance to the aforesaid directions of the A.O placed on record the copy of the purchase bills and submitted the stock summary, as per which the goods purchased from the aforesaid parties were either sold or formed part of his closing stock. The assessee further submitted before the A.O that as it was a fact borne from the records that he had earned gross profit @ 9.26% in respect of the sale of the goods under consideration, which was more than the G.P of 4.59% pertaining to the goods which were purchased from the other parties, therefore, concluded that on the said count no further addition was liable to be made in his hands. The assessee further in his attempt to drive home his contention that he had made genuine purchases from the aforesaid parties, submitted that the payments towards the purchase consideration to the said respective parties were made by cheques. The A.O after deliberating on the contentions of the assessee did not find favour with the same for multiple reasons, viz. (i)

The A.O further observed that though the assessee had sold the goods under consideration, however, the same were not proved to have been purchased from the aforementioned parties. The A.O concluded that the assessee had as a matter of fact purchased the goods from certain unknown parties and thereafter had merely obtained bills from the aforesaid hawala dealers. Thus, as per the A.O the assessee had dealt with two parties, viz. (i) the parties from whom the goods were not purchased but the bills were obtained, on the basis of which the purchases were recorded in books of accounts; and (ii) other parties P a g e | 15 Shri Malay N. Shanghvi Vs. ITO from whom the goods were actually purchased but not recorded in the books of accounts. The A.O further deliberating on the mode of payment made by the assessee, therein observed that cheque payments were made to the hawala parties and were recorded in the books of accounts, while for the payments made to the parties from whom the goods were actually purchased was not reflected in the books of accounts. The A.O further observed that the assessee could not prove that the payment towards purchase consideration by the assessee to the parties from whom the goods were actually purchased was made by cheques. Thus, on the basis of his aforesaid observations the A.O concluded that the assessee had given cheques to the parties issuing accommodation bills, and in return got cash of equivalent amount, which was utilized for making payment of the purchase consideration to the parties from whom the goods were actually purchased. The A.O on the basis of his aforesaid observations concluded that as the assessee had made payment for purchase of goods, otherwise than by crossed/account payee cheques, which was in contravention of the provisions of Sec. 40A(3), therefore, 20% of the said purchases i.e. Rs.4,71,935/-(20% of Rs.23,59,675/-) was liable to be disallowed. The A.O on the basis of his aforesaid observations, therein interalia made an addition of Rs.23,59,675/- towards unexplained purchases made by the assessee under Sec. 69C.

The A.O further observed that as the assessee had failed to prove the genuineness of the bills submitted in respect of the bogus parties, therefore, the purchase rate of actual bills against which the goods were received was not determinable. The A.O held a conviction that as the assessee had booked the purchases on the basis of the purchase rate mentioned on the bogus purchase bills, therefore, the G.P. rate of 9.26% declared by the assessee in respect of the transactions P a g e | 16 Shri Malay N. Shanghvi Vs. ITO involving items pertaining to bogus purchases was not acceptable. The A.O on the basis of his aforesaid observations estimated the G.P rate of the assessee @ 20% of the value of goods sold (Rs. 24,55,446/-) for which the corresponding purchases (Rs.23,59,675/-) were bogus, and as such worked out the gross profit in the hands of the assessee at Rs.4,91,089/- (20% of Rs.24,55,446/). That on the basis of his aforesaid observations the A.O substituted the G.P. rate of Rs.2,27,464/- shown by the assessee by Rs.4,91,089/-. However, as the A.O had already disallowed the entire purchases, therefore, the variance of Rs.2,63,625/- [(Rs.4,91,089/- (-) Rs.2,27,464/-)] was not separately added by him to the returned income of the assessee. The A.O on the basis of his aforesaid deliberations assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.88,86,292/-.

Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) after deliberating on the additions made by the A.O in respect of the bogus purchases, therein observed that as the A.O had not doubted the sales corresponding to the purchases under consideration, therefore, it could safely be concluded that the assessee had made the purchases of the goods under consideration, though not from the aforementioned hawala parties, but from the open/grey market. The CIT(A) further held a conviction that by making the purchases of the goods under consideration from the open/grey market the assessee had saved on the taxes etc., i.e. VAT @ 13% and octroi @ 2%. The CIT(A) further taking cognizance of the fact that the assessee had shown a G.P rate of 9.26%, therefore, concluded that the gross profit in the hands of the assessee pertaining to the goods under consideration could safely be taken @ 24.26% (i.e. 9.26% (+) 15%), and on the basis of his aforesaid observations confirmed the addition in respect of bogus purchases to the extent of Rs.23,59,675/-.

The CIT(A) adverting to the disallowance of Rs.4,71,935/- made by the A.O under Sec. 40A(3), therein observed that the A.O had merely presumed that the assessee had made cash payments for purchases made from the open/grey market, and as a result thereof had disallowed 20% of the purchases under the aforesaid statutory provision, viz. Sec. 40A(3). The CIT(A) observed that as the aforesaid addition/disallowance made by the A.O under Sec. 40A(3) was only on the basis of a presumption that the assessee might have made cash purchases, therefore, the same could not be sustained on the said ground. The CIT(A) while so concluding relied on the order of the ITAT, Mumbai, in the case of Free India Assurance Services Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITA No. 3541 to 3544/Mum/2007; dated 30.03.2011, Thus, on the basis of his aforesaid observations the CIT(A) deleted the disallowance of Rs.4,11,935/- made by the A.O under Sec. 40A(3) of the ‘Act’.

The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A), to the extent the latter had sustained the addition of Rs.23,59,675/- in the hands of the assessee, had carried the matter in appeal before us. The ld. A.R for the assessee submitted that the CIT(A) had erred in sustaining the addition of 24.26% of the purchases which were claimed by the assessee to have been made from the aforementioned parties, which therein had led to an exorbitant addition of Rs.23,59,675/-. It was submitted by the ld. A.R that now when the assessee had already shown a G.P. rate of 9.26% in respect of the sales pertaining to the goods under consideration, therefore, no further addition was called for in the hands of the assessee. Per contra, the ld. D.R. relied on the order of the A.O.

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations.

We shall now take up the appeal of the revenue for AY 2010-11. The revenue assailing the order of the CIT(A) had therein raised before us the following grounds of appeal:-

The revenue had assailed the restricting of the addition of bogus purchase of Rs.23,59,675/- made by the A.O, to the extent of the profit element of 24.26% by the CIT(A). The ld. D.R had averred before us that now when it was established that the assessee had made the purchases of the goods under consideration from the open/grey market, therefore, the CIT(A) ought to have sustained the addition of the entire purchase value of Rs.23,59,675/- made by the A.O under P a g e | 21 Shri Malay N. Shanghvi Vs. ITO Sec. 69C towards unexplained expenditure incurred by the assessee for purchase of the goods under consideration.

We have given a thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid contention of the revenue, and are of the considered view that now when it remains as a matter of fact that both the purchases and sales of goods under consideration had been recorded by the assessee in his books of accounts, therefore, there remained no occasion for having treated the entire purchases of Rs.23,59,675/- as an unexplained expenditure under Sec. 69C in the hands of the assessee. We had while disposing of the appeal of the assessee for the year under consideration, viz. AY 2010-11 in ITA No. 5682/Mum/2013 restricted the disallowance/addition in respect of bogus purchases to the extent of 12.5% of the value of purchases claimed by the assessee to have been made from the aforementioned hawala parties. We thus in terms of our aforesaid observations dismiss the Ground of appeal

The Ld. D.R at the very outset submitted that the facts and circumstances pertaining to claim of disallowance under Sec. 80IB(4) for the year under consideration, viz. AY: 2010-11, were clearly distinguishable as against those made available on record in the case P a g e | 25 Shri Malay N. Shanghvi Vs. ITO of the assessee for the immediately preceding year, viz. AY 2009-10. The ld. D.R taking us through the observations of the A.O submitted that during the year under consideration, unlike the preceding year, viz. AY 2009-10, wherein certain material facts were not made available on record, viz. (i) assessee’s unit at Mumbai (non eligible for deduction under Sec. 80IB) had made sales to his unit at Jammu of Rs. 4,29,038/-; (ii) the sister concern of the assessee, viz. M/s Umargaum Industries (a proprietary concern of the assessees wife) had made sales of Rs.1,14,061/- to the assessee’s unit at Jammu; (iii) the eligible unit of the assessee at Jammu had given an advance to M/s Umargaum Industries of Rs. 27,49,203/-; (iv) the eligible Unit of the assessee at Jammu had received an interest free loan of Rs.6,00,000/- from Bharti Sanghvi, a family member of the assessee; and (v) the eligible unit of the assessee at Jammu had given an interest free loan of Rs.71,87,955/- to the assessee unit at Mumbai, all were facts which proved that there was a clear intermingling of funds between the assessees eligible unit at Jammu with those of his sister concern, viz. M/s Umargaum Industries, and his other unit at Mumbai, therefore, the provision of Sec. 80IA(7) and 80IA(8) were clearly applicable to the case of the assessee. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid observations, it was submitted by the ld. D.R that as the facts involved in the case of the assessee for the year under consideration were distinguishable as against those for the preceding year, viz. AY 2009-10, therefore, the A.O had fairly restricted the profits of the eligible unit of the assessee at Jammu to 7.85%, i.e. 5% more than the profit shown by the sister concern, viz. M/s Umargaum Industries during the said year. Per contra, the ld. A.R submitted that the CIT(A) had correctly concluded that the facts of the case for the year under consideration were the same as against those which were involved in his case for the immediately preceding year, viz. AY: 2009- P a g e | 26 Shri Malay N. Shanghvi Vs. ITO 10. It was thus averred by the ld. A.R that the CIT(A) following the order of his predecessor had rightly deleted the disallowance made by the A.O under Sec. 80IB(4) for the year under consideration.

We have heard the authorized representatives for both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record in context of the issue under consideration. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the facts pertaining to the entitlement of the assessee towards claim of deduction under Sec. 80IB(4), in the backdrop of the provisions of Sec. 80IA(8) and 80IA(10), as had been heavily relied upon by the A.O. We find that the A.O in order to drive home his contention that the provisions of Sec. 80IA(8) and 80IA(10) were clearly applicable to the case of the assessee, had therein referred to certain business transactions between the assessees unit at Mumbai (non eligible for deduction under Sec.80IB) with his eligible unit at Jammu; the minimal sales of Rs.1,14,061/- made by the ‘sister concern’ of the assessee, viz. M/s Umargaum Industries to the eligible unit of the assessee at Jammu; advancing of an amount by the eligible unit of the assessee at Jammu to his aforesaid ‘sister concern’ M/s Umargaum Industries; receiving of interest free loans by the eligible unit of the assessee at Jammu from his family member, viz. Bharti Sanghvi; and giving of interest free loan by the eligible unit of the assessee at Jammu to his unit at Mumbai. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid observations of the A.O and his strong assertion that there was an intermingling of funds between the eligible unit of the assessee with his sister concern and his concern at Mumbai. However, we are of the considered view that the transactions referred to by the A.O are simple commercial transactions, which in no way establish transfer of any goods or services held for the purpose of eligible business by the assessee to P a g e | 27 Shri Malay N. Shanghvi Vs. ITO any other business carried on by him, or vice versa, for a consideration which as recorded in the accounts of the eligible business does not correspond to the market value of said goods or services as on the date of the transfer. We are of the considered view that the very absence of satisfaction of the aforesaid statutory requirements, as contemplated under Sec. 80IA(8), therefore, clearly ousts the applicability of the said statutory provision, viz. Sec.80IA(8) to the case of the assessee. We thus are of the considered view that the A.O had failed to place on record any material which could irrefutably bring the case of the assessee within the sweep of Sec. 80IA(8). We further find that the reference to Sec.80IA(7) by the A.O would also not be applicable to the case of the assessee, as the latter had duly furnished along with his return of income, the report of such audit in Form no. 10CCB, duly verified and signed by the Chartered Accountant.

We now advert to the applicability of the provisions of Sec. 80IA(10) to the facts of the case before us. We find that to the extent the transactions between the assessee and his sister concern, viz. M/s Umargaum Industries are concerned, no such arrangement between the assessee and his aforesaid sister concern, viz. Umargaum Industries, had been established, on the basis of which it could be concluded that the business transacted between them had produced to the assessee more that the ordinary profits, which might be expected to arise in such eligible business. We are of the considered view that again here too the A.O had failed to establish the satisfaction of the requisite conditions contemplated in the aforesaid statutory provisions, viz. Section 80IA(10).

We have deliberated on the facts before us, and are persuaded to be in agreement with the view of the CIT(A), that the facts of the case P a g e | 28 Shri Malay N. Shanghvi Vs. ITO for the year under consideration, viz. AY: 2010-11 are in no way different from those involved in the case of the assessee for the immediately preceding year, viz. AY: 2009-10, in context of the entitlement of the assessee towards claim of deduction under Section 80IB(4). We thus find ourselves to be in agreement with the view taken by the CIT(A), as regards the entitlement of the assessee towards claim of deduction under Sec. 80IB(4), and as such uphold his order allowing the claim of the assessee towards deduction under Sec. 80IB(4) to the extent of Rs.66,29,998/-. The Ground of appeal