Appeals granted for deductions under section 80IB(10) emphasizing consideration of entire income.

Madhav Corporation, Ahmedabad Versus Asstt. C.I.T. Central Circle 1 (4), Ahmedabad

Madhav Corporation, Ahmedabad Versus Asstt. C.I.T. Central Circle 1 (4), Ahmedabad - [2015] 44 ITR (Trib) 193 (ITAT [Ahm]) Issues Involved:
1. Non-consideration of appellant's submissions by CIT(A).
2. Legitimacy of deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Income-tax Act.
3. Charging of interest under sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and 234D.
4. Initiation of penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(c) and 271AAA.
5. Additional claim of deduction under section 80IB(10) based on seized records.
6. Addition of Rs. 2,75,00,000/- as not related to profit of the housing project.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Non-consideration of Appellant's Submissions by CIT(A):
The appellant argued that the CIT(A) did not consider their submissions, which was against the principle of natural justice. The tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had indeed reviewed the submissions but upheld the Assessing Officer's (AO) decisions. The tribunal found no merit in the appellant's claim that their submissions were ignored.

2. Legitimacy of Deduction under Section 80IB(10):
The primary issue was whether the assessee was eligible for deductions under section 80IB(10) given that they did not own the land. The AO considered the assessee as a contractor rather than a developer. The tribunal analyzed the conditions stipulated under section 80IB(10) and found that the assessee fulfilled all necessary conditions, including the completion of the housing project within the stipulated time. The tribunal referenced the decision in the case of Radhe Developers, which supported the assessee's claim as a developer. Thus, the tribunal directed the AO to allow the deduction under section 80IB(10).

3. Charging of Interest under Sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and 234D:
The tribunal noted that the charging of interest under these sections is consequential and directed the AO to recalculate the interest based on the revised income assessments.

4. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings under Sections 271(1)(c) and 271AAA:
The tribunal found that the initiation of penalty proceedings was premature. Therefore, it dismissed the grounds related to penalty proceedings as premature.

5. Additional Claim of Deduction under Section 80IB(10) Based on Seized Records:
The assessee claimed additional deductions based on "on money" receipts disclosed during the search. The tribunal referenced several decisions, including those of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and ITAT Ahmedabad, which supported the inclusion of "on money" as part of business income eligible for deduction under section 80IB(10). The tribunal directed the AO to allow the additional claim of deduction.

6. Addition of Rs. 2,75,00,000/- as Not Related to Profit of the Housing Project:
The tribunal found that the "on money" component was part of the business income and should be considered for deduction under section 80IB(10). It held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the "on money" as part of the regular books of accounts. The tribunal directed the AO to allow the deduction on the additional income of Rs. 2,75,00,000/-.

Conclusion:
The tribunal partly allowed the appeals, directing the AO to grant deductions under section 80IB(10) for all three years, recalculate the interest under sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and 234D, and dismissed the penalty proceedings as premature. The decision emphasized the importance of considering the entire income, including "on money," as part of the business income eligible for deductions under section 80IB(10).