Tribunal upholds CIT(A) on Section 80IB, 115JB deductions, reverses on exempt income.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions on the deletion of the reduction from Section 80IB deduction and the exclusion of the share of profits from a partnership firm in book profits under Section 115JB. However, it reversed the CIT(A)'s decision on the inclusion of expenditure related to exempt income in book profits under Section 115JB, restoring the AO's order. The appeal of the revenue was partly allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of reduction from Section 80IB deduction.
2. Allocation of Common Overhead Expenses (COH) to projects eligible and non-eligible for Section 80IB deduction.
3. Inclusion of expenditure related to exempt income in book profits under Section 115JB.
4. Exclusion of share of profits from a partnership firm in book profits under Section 115JB.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Deletion of Reduction from Section 80IB Deduction
The revenue challenged the deletion of Rs. 5,06,11,025 from the Section 80IB deduction by the CIT(A). This amount included Rs. 1,55,18,769 and Rs. 3,50,92,256. The AO denied the deduction for Rs. 1,55,18,769, arguing that the profit from the sale and development of land in the 'Sobha Daffodil' project was not derived from the development of the housing project but from the sister company, STP. The CIT(A) found that the Tribunal had previously ruled in favor of the assessee for the A.Y. 2005-06, allowing such profits to be eligible for the Section 80IB deduction. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the revenue's grievance.

Issue 2: Allocation of Common Overhead Expenses (COH)
The AO believed the assessee allocated COH expenses to minimize the expenses shown for projects eligible for the Section 80IB deduction and maximize them for non-eligible projects. The AO reallocated COH at 4% instead of the 3.27% used by the assessee, resulting in a reduction of Rs. 3,50,92,256 in profits for Section 80IB projects. The CIT(A) found the AO's basis for the 4% allocation arbitrary and unsupported by specific instances of improper allocation, directing the deletion of the addition. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), finding no basis for the AO's assumption and dismissing the revenue's ground.

Issue 3: Inclusion of Expenditure Related to Exempt Income in Book Profits under Section 115JB
The AO added Rs. 24,64,632, an expenditure related to exempt income under Sections 10(35) and 10(2A), to the book profits under Section 115JB. The CIT(A) ruled that Section 14A and Rule 8D, which deal with disallowance of expenditure related to exempt income, do not apply to the computation of book profits under Section 115JB. The Tribunal, however, found that the provisions of Section 14A and Rule 8D could be used to determine the expenditure related to exempt income for the purpose of Section 115JB, reversing the CIT(A)'s order and restoring the AO's decision.

Issue 4: Exclusion of Share of Profits from a Partnership Firm in Book Profits under Section 115JB
The AO refused to exclude Rs. 6,63,79,683, the share of profits from a partnership firm, from the book profits under Section 115JB, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT, which restricts the AO from entertaining claims not made in a revised return. The CIT(A) held that appellate authorities could entertain such claims and directed the exclusion of the share of profits from the book profits. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the share of profits, exempt under Section 10(2A), should be excluded from the book profits.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions on the deletion of the reduction from Section 80IB deduction and the exclusion of the share of profits from a partnership firm in book profits under Section 115JB. However, it reversed the CIT(A)'s decision on the inclusion of expenditure related to exempt income in book profits under Section 115JB, restoring the AO's order. The appeal of the revenue was partly allowed.

---