ITAT Chennai allows appeals on deduction u/s 80IB(10) for project income recognition method pre-completion The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai allowed the appeals filed by the assessee in a case involving a revision order by the Commissioner of Income-tax ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
ITAT Chennai allows appeals on deduction u/s 80IB(10) for project income recognition method pre-completion
The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai allowed the appeals filed by the assessee in a case involving a revision order by the Commissioner of Income-tax regarding deduction u/s 80IB(10) for assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06. The Tribunal found that the assessee's method of income recognition was accepted, and the deduction claim was valid even before project completion. Relying on the Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. case, the Tribunal held that the revision orders were unsustainable in law, setting them aside.
Issues involved: Appeal against revision order u/s 263 regarding deduction u/s 80IB(10) for assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06.
Summary: The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai heard appeals by the assessee against a revision order by the Commissioner of Income-tax regarding deduction u/s 80IB(10) for assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06. The Commissioner set aside the assessment orders directing re-consideration of the deduction claim as the Assessing Officer did not apply his mind on the issue. The assessee contended that the project was completed in a later year and followed percentage completion method for income recognition. The Revenue argued that statutory requirements were not met and the assessment orders were erroneous. The Tribunal found that the assessee's method of income recognition was accepted, and the deduction claim was valid even before project completion. Citing the Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. case, the Tribunal held that the orders were not erroneous and set aside the revision orders as unsustainable in law, allowing the appeals filed by the assessee.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.