Partnership Deed Revision Allows Full Deduction

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow full deduction under section 80IB by accepting a revised partnership deed, despite the Revenue's challenge. The Tribunal emphasized the need for consistency in treating similar issues across different assessment years and dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to the conflicting views taken by the Assessing Officer on the deduction claimed.

---

---

Issues:
- Disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB by disallowing partner's remuneration and interest on capital
- Acceptance of revised partnership deed by CIT(A) for allowing full deduction under section 80IB
- Discrepancy in Assessing Officer's treatment of similar issues in different assessment years

Analysis:
1. The appeal by Revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s order allowing deduction u/s 80IB by disallowing partner's remuneration and interest on capital. The original partnership deed indicated provisions for remuneration and interest, but a supplementary deed was executed later. The Assessing Officer disallowed part of the claim, citing non-submission of the supplementary deed during the original assessment. The CIT(A) allowed full deduction under section 80IB after considering the original partnership deed and the submission of the assessee.

2. The CIT(A) relied on CBDT circular and previous tribunal decisions to support the allowance of deduction without compelling the appellant to charge interest or remuneration to partners. The Revenue contended that the supplementary partnership deed was reconstituted solely to claim excess deduction under section 80IB, while the assessee argued that the supplementary deed was executed with the consent of the majority of partners.

3. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer re-opened the case based on the deduction claimed without allowing interest and remuneration to partners. However, in a subsequent assessment year, the same officer allowed a similar relief to the assessee. This inconsistency in treatment of the same issue for the same assessee was deemed impermissible under the income tax provisions. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision and dismissed the appeal by the Revenue.

4. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of consistency in revenue authorities' treatment of similar issues across different assessment years when facts remain unchanged. The conflicting views taken by the Assessing Officer in different years regarding the same issue were deemed unacceptable. Consequently, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order allowing the deduction under section 80IB and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

---