TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>ITAT Mumbai upholds CIT(A) order granting deduction under section 80IB(10)</h1> <h3>Asst. C.I.T. Circle 21 (1), Mumbai Versus Ms. Asha K. Ringshia,</h3> The ITAT Mumbai dismissed the department's appeal against the CIT(A) order, allowing deduction u/s 80IB(10) for the assessee. The decision was based on ... - Issues involved: Appeal against CIT(A) order directing AO to allow deduction u/s 80IB(10); Acceptance of claim by CIT(A) despite restriction in Board's notification; Eligibility for deduction u/s 80IB(10) based on furnished documents; Admission of new evidence in contravention of Rule 46.Deduction u/s 80IB(10): Assessee, a builder, claimed deduction u/s 80IB(10) for a project approved by local authority. AO found non-fulfillment of basic condition, disallowed deduction. CIT(A) allowed deduction citing CBDT clarification making project eligible for deduction from AY 2005-06 onwards. ITAT upheld CIT(A) decision based on prior year's ruling and rejected department's appeal.Board's Notification Restriction: Department argued restriction in Board's notification dated 05.01.2011, limiting deduction for projects approved between 01.04.2004 to 31.03.2008. CIT(A) clarified applicability of notification to all projects approved within specified period, making income eligible for deduction u/s 80IB(10) from AY 2005-06 onwards.Eligibility based on Furnished Documents: Assessee submitted documents to CIT(A) supporting eligibility for deduction u/s 80IB(10), not previously furnished to AO. CIT(A) considered documents and allowed deduction based on fulfillment of conditions, leading to ITAT upholding the decision.Admission of New Evidence: Department raised objection to CIT(A) admitting new evidence contrary to Rule 46. ITAT noted issue carried from previous year, lack of specific evidence cited by department, and rejected department's grounds on this issue.General Grounds: Remaining grounds raised by department were of general nature and were dismissed by ITAT without detailed discussion.In conclusion, ITAT Mumbai dismissed the department's appeal against CIT(A) order allowing deduction u/s 80IB(10) for the assessee, based on fulfillment of conditions and prior rulings. The decision was upheld regarding the applicability of Board's notification and admission of new evidence, with general grounds being rejected.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
