2019 (6) TMI 1688 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Upholds Pro-Rata Deduction Decision under Section 80IB(10) for Assessment Years

ITO, Ward-5 (1), Pune Versus M/s. Shah Bafna Associates

The Tribunal upheld the decision to allow a pro-rata deduction u/s.80IB(10) based on completion status for assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14, ... Deduction u/s.80IB(10) on pro-rata basis - proportionate/pro-rata deduction - AO observed that the project was not a 6 floor project but each wing had 10 or 12 floors and 4 flats on each floor, whereas the assessee had taken permission and completion as on 31-03-2012 for only 72 flats, thus AO disentitled the assessee to the entire amount of deduction claimed u/s.80IB(10) - HELD THAT:-The factual recording made by the ld. CIT(A) that the assessee did not claim any deduction in respect of the flats which were not completed upto the year ending has not been controverted by the DR. AR submitted that the issue raised in these appeals is no more res integra in view of an order passed in the case of M/s. Om Associates [2018 (6) TMI 1581 - ITAT PUNE] the Tribunal has held the assessee to be entitled to pro-rata deduction u/s.80IB(10) in respect of the completed buildings. DR fairly conceded that the facts and circumstances of the instant appeals are mutatis mutandis covered by the aforesaid order of the Tribunal which, has been rendered in favour of the assessee. Respectfully following the precedent, we approve the view canvassed by the CIT(A) in the impugned orders. Revenue appeals are dismissed. Issues:- Appeal by Revenue against deduction u/s.80IB(10) for assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14.Analysis:1. Issue of Deduction u/s.80IB(10):- The appeals concerned the allowance of deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on a pro-rata basis.- The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee as the project did not meet the specified criteria.- The ld. CIT(A) allowed a proportionate deduction for the flats constructed before a certain date, based on completion status.- The Revenue challenged this decision, but the ld. CIT(A)'s observation about the completion status was not contested.- The Tribunal referred to a previous order in a similar case where pro-rata deduction was allowed, which favored the assessee.- Relying on the precedent, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the ld. CIT(A) and dismissed the appeals.2. Common Issue for A.Y. 2012-13 & 2013-14:- The appeals for both assessment years raised the same issue regarding the entitlement to deduction u/s.80IB(10) on a pro-rata basis.- The facts and circumstances of both appeals were found to be similar, except for the variance in the deduction amount claimed.- The Tribunal consolidated the orders for both years for convenience and efficiency in disposal.3. Legal Precedent and Approval of View:- The Tribunal cited a specific order from the Pune Benches in a related case, establishing the entitlement to pro-rata deduction u/s.80IB(10) for completed buildings.- The ld. DR acknowledged the similarity between the precedent and the current appeals, conceding in favor of the assessee.- Following the precedent and the decision in the previous case, the Tribunal approved the view taken by the ld. CIT(A) in allowing the pro-rata deduction.In conclusion, the judgment centered on the issue of deduction u/s.80IB(10) for the assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14, where the Tribunal upheld the decision to allow a pro-rata deduction based on completion status, following a relevant legal precedent. The appeals were dismissed, emphasizing consistency with prior rulings and the specific circumstances of the case.