ITO 31(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. NEETA ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4171/MUM/2015Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 March 2017AY 2012-133 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision. It relied on previous orders in the assessee's own case which had decided identical issues in favour of the assessee.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order allowing deduction under Section 80-IB(10). The grounds for appeal were that the local authority approval was obtained before the eligible date and a completion certificate was not obtained before the mandatory due date.

What were the issues?

Whether the deduction under Section 80-IB(10) is allowable when local authority approval was obtained prior to the specified date and the completion certificate was obtained after the statutory deadline.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80-IB(10)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO & SHRI RAVISH SOOD

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya
For Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, CIT-DR
Hearing: 16.03.2017Pronounced: 29.03.2017

सुनवाई की तायीख / Date of Hearing : 16.03.2017 घोषणा की तायीख /Date of Pronouncement : 29.03.2017 आदेश / O R D E R

PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM:

1.

This appeal filed by the Revenue on 7.7.2015 is against the order of the CIT (A)-42, Mumbai dated 22.4.2015 for the assessment year 2012-13. In this appeal, Revenue raised the following grounds which read as under:- “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) erred in allowing deduction u/s 80-IB(10) of the Act ignoring the fact that the approval of the local authority was obtained on 28.11.1992 ie much before 1.10.1998 the date on or after which the project approved were eligible for deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act.

2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) erred in allowing deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act ignoring the fact that it has not obtained completion certificate from local authority before 31.3.2008 which is mandatory as per Explanation (ii) to section 80IB(10) of the Act.”

2. The only issue raised in this appeal relates to the allowability of deduction u/s 80-IB(10) of the Act. In the assessment, AO disallowed the claim of the assessee consistently on the ground that the project undertaken by the assessee is eligible for deduction as the completion certificate was not obtained before 31st March, 2008.

3.

On the above issue, Ld Counsel for the assessee brought our attention to the order of the Tribunal in the assessee‟s own case for the AYs 2007-08 and 2010-11 in and 5206/M/2014 vide Tribunal‟s order dated 21.10.2016. Further, Ld AR brought our attention to the order of the Tribunal in assessee‟s own case for the AY 2011-12 in ITA No.6002/M/2014 and submitted that in the said order similar issue came up for adjudication and the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed vide its order dated 23.9.2016.

4.

After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the orders of the Revenue Authorities as well as the cited decisions of the Tribunal (supra) and the relevant material placed before us. On perusal of the cited order of the Tribunal for the AY 2011-2012 (supra), wherein the undersigned are the parties to the said order, we find, the identical issue was adjudicated by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee and dismissed the Revenue‟s appeal. Considering the significance and for the sake of completeness of this order, relevant paras 2 to 6 from the said order are extracted as under:-

“ 2. Before us, in connection with Ground no.1, Ld Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue raised in this appeal relates to the “commencement” of the housing project for the purpose of section 80IB(10) of the Act. Stating that this issue stands covered in favour of the assessee in assessee‟s own case by virtue of the order of the Tribunal for the earlier assessment years, Ld Counsel for the assessee filed a copy of the order of the Tribunal in (2006-07) and others, dated 4.6.2014. He read out the relevant paras 18 and 19 of the said Tribunal‟s order.

3. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the cited order of the Tribunal in assessee‟s own case (supra), we find, the following lines are relevant for adjudication of Ground no.1 and the same read as under:- “19. ............ Therefore, we find no infirmity in the finding recorded by the Ld CIT (A) that the AO was wrong in holding that the housing project of the assessee had commenced before 1.10.1998. We uphold his order. Since, the facts and circumstances in all the three cases are identical, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed.”

4. The above finding of the Tribunal if read along with the finding of the CIT (A) in his order vide the contents of para 2.4 on page 14, the decision taken by the CIT (A) is fair and reasonable and the issue raised by the Revenue in Ground no.1 is required to be dismissed. We order accordingly. Thus, Ground no.1 raised by the Revenue is dismissed.

5.

Regarding Ground no.2 relating to the date of completion of the project, also it is the contention of the Ld Counsel for the assessee that the same stands covered and the CIT (A)‟s decision given in para 3.4 of his order at page 32 is relevant in this regard. It is the finding of the CIT (A) that the project in question was approved prior to the amendment and therefore, the provisions relating to the „due date‟ fixed in the Statute are inapplicable. However, notwithstanding the same,

More judgments on Section 80-IB(10)

All 100 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80-IB(10) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →