Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI G.S. PANNU & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI
The captioned appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of CIT(A)-28, Mumbai dated 22.01.2015, pertaining to the Assessment Year 2010-11, which in turn has arisen from the order passed by the Assessing Officer, Mumbai dated 15.03.2013 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).
In this appeal, Revenue has raised the following Grounds of appeal :
“1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in holding that the assessee is entitled to the deduction u/s 80IB(10), when the area of plot, on which the housing project is constructed is less than one acre?
2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in holding that assessee is entitled to the deduction u/s 80IB(10), when the area of flat constructed is more than 1500 sq. ft.?
The appellant prays that the order of the AO should be restored and order of the CIT(A) should be set aside.”
3. As the Grounds of appeal reveal, the only issue in this appeal relates to the claim of assessee for deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act with respect to the profits derived from housing project “Hermes Heritage” located at Pune. The Assessing Officer has denied the claim primarily on the ground that a similar claim for earlier assessment years of 2003-04 to 2006-07 was denied by the then assessing authority. The CIT(A) has allowed the claim noticing that in the assessment years 2003- 04 to 2006-07, the claim was allowed by the Tribunal, and such decision has since been upheld by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court also. The CIT(A) also noted that in Assessment Year 2008-09, a similar issue was decided by the Tribunal in assessee’s favour following the precedents. Accordingly, the CIT(A) has allowed the claim of assessee for deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act.
4. At the time of hearing, the ld. DR has not disputed that the precedents followed by the CIT(A) continue to hold the field and same have not been altered by any higher authority. Under these circumstances, we hereby affirm the order of CIT(A) and accordingly, Revenue fails in its appeal.
Resultantly, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court at the conclusion of hearing in the presence of the ld. DR on 28th February, 2017.