THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 (2) (5),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. SHREE JIVRAJ RESIDENCY,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case, finding no distinguishing facts presented by the Revenue. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order deleting the addition was correct.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order allowing a deduction under Section 80IB(10) for profits earned from a construction project. The assessee argued that the issue was covered by a coordinate bench's decision in their own case for a different assessment year.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80IB(10) for profits from a construction project, considering a previous coordinate bench ruling.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “RAJKOT” BENCH, RAJKOT
Before: SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA&
O R D E R
PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY - JM:
The instant appeal at the instance of the Revenue is directed against the order dated 19.01.2018 passed by the passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 11, Ahmedabad (the CIT(A)), arising out of the assessment order dated 16.03.2015 passed by the Learned DCIT, Central Circle-2, Rajkot under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2009-10.
ITO vs. Shree Jivraj Township - 2- 2. The matter relates to the deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Act of Rs.3,49,29,737/- profit earned by the assessee from the construction of project.
At the time of hearing of the instant appeal Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted before us that the issue is squarely covered in assessee’s own matter for Assessment Year 2011-12 by the judgment dated 05.12.2016 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Ld. Tribunal copy whereof has also been handed over to us in ITA No. 209/Rjt/2015.
The Ld. DR, however, failed to controvert the same.
We have heard the Ld. Counsel appearing for the respective parties, we have also perused the relevant materials available on record and also carefully considered the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee’s own case in appeal preferred by Revenue in for A.Y. 2011- 12. The identical issue has been considered by the Co-ordinate Bench in the said judgment, the relevant observation whereof is as follows:-
11. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the underlying facts in the issues before us. We find force in the contentions of the ld. counsel. The facts of the case in hand are similar to the facts considered by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court (supra). As no distinguishing facts have been brought on record by the Id. D.R. nor any distinguishing decision has been cited by the Id. D.R, we have already extracted the relevant part of the Hon'ble High Court's decision which has been followed- By the First Appellate Authority. Therefore, we do not find any error or infirmity in the findings of the ld. CIT(A), we decline to interfere.
Respectfully, following the same, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting such addition made by the Ld. AO following the decision taken by his predecessor in the earlier year in allowing ITO vs. Shree Jivraj Township - 3- the deduction u/s. 80IA(10) of the Act taking in consideration of the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench as discussed above. Hence the same is confirmed. Revenue’s appeal is found to be devoid of any merit and thus dismissed.
In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.
This Order pronounced on 14/02/2023
More judgments on Section 80IB(10)
- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax… vs Cosmos Constructions, ThaneITA 8234/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2026AY 2012-13
- ACIT-24(1), Piramal Chambers vs Atul Properties, MumbaiITA 8043/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed17 Aug 2026AY 2013-14
- ACIT-24(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chambers vs Atul Properties, MumbaiITA 8042/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed17 Aug 2026AY 2012-13
- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax… vs Cosmos Enterprises, ThaneITA 8209/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: Disposed14 Aug 2026AY 2010-11
- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax… vs Cosmos Enterprises, ThaneITA 8208/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: Disposed14 Aug 2026AY 2009-10
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Basudev Logistics, Jagatsinghpur vs. Principal Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Prabhudatta Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods And Services Tax, OdishaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs. Joint Commissioner Of GST (Appeal), Territorial Range, BolangirOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Attitude Exim PVT. LTD., Rourkela vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S.Pradeep Kumar Mahapatra, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent Bhubaneswar-Iii Circle, CGST Range, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026