TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (5) TMI 485
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....In this year the assessee sold the flats in stock and on the profit declared on the sale of the said flats, assessee claimed the deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the Act of Rs. 1,14,91,144/-. The A.O. denied the said deduction to the assessee relying on the assessment order for the A.Y. 2003-04. We find that no detail discussion in the assessment order on this issue. The Ld. CIT (A) confirmed the order of the A.O. denying the deduction to the assessee by giving reference of the A.Y. 2003-04. Now, the assessee is in appeal before us. 3. We have heard the parties. We find that in the A.Y. 2003-04 the order of the Ld. CIT (A) was challenged before the Tribunal by filing appeals being ITAs 6033 and 6143/M/2007 and Tribunal allowed the claim of the assessee following the decision of the Special Bench in the case of M/s. Brahma Associates (supra), copy of the Tribunal order is placed on record. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Ld. CIT (A) on this issue and allow the ground taken by the assessee as admittedly the flats sold by the assessee in this year are out of stockin- trade with the assessee in respect of the Project "Ram Laxman Tower" and issue of allowability of the dedu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6.00 Interest Recd. 336,892.00 Water Charges 429,680.00 Society deposit 1,275,000.00 Society maintenance recd. 949,300.60 Share money 21,771.00 Society formation 88,500.00 Car Parking Charges 545,000.00 Grill Charges 494,739.00 Video Door Security Chgs. 1,425,000.00 Legal Charges 44,250.00 Total 8,382,964.60 7. Present assessee has collected the different charges from the flat buyers as builder for the specific purposes but as comparative expenditure is lesser hence, the balance credit was taken to the profit and loss account. No further description is available before us to clarify the nature of the receipts. So far as development charges are concerned, as explained by the Ld. Counsel the same are collected from flat buyers for the development purpose. In our opinion, the same has got direct nexus with the development of housing project. Same way, the following receipts are having direct nexus with the housing project. Sr. No. Particulars Amount in Rs. 1 Extra work 13,87,216.00 2 Interest from flat buyers for late payment 336,892.00 3 Car Parking 545,000.00 4 Grill....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....- Income pertaining to 'Sai Jyot' Project Rs. 5,73,96,177/- Income from Sai Jyot/ Total Income as worked out above 81.9% Proportionate indirect expenses Rs. 23,96,673/- 13. The A.O. accordingly reduced the profit of 'Sai Jyot' Project by Rs. 23,96,673/- and in consequence, the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s.80IB(10) was also reduced. The assessee carried the issue before the Ld. CIT (A) and Ld. CIT (A) following the decision of the Tribunal in the of assessee's sister concern, namely M/s. Ganga Developers (ITA no.9136/M/2004) for the A.Y. 2001-02 directed the A.O. to examine the issue of allowability of the assessee's claim in the light of the said decision. The operative part of the findings of the Ld. CIT (A) is as under:- "5.3 I have considered the assessment order and the submissions of the appellant. As I find, the Hon'ble ITAT 'K' Bench, Mumbai, has vide its order dated 28.6.2007 in the case of appellant's sister concern, M/s. Ganga Developers vs. DCIT Central Circle 31 (ITA no.9136/Mum/2004) for the A.Y. 2001-02 passed its order on similar ground. In this decision, the Hon'ble ITAT has agreed in principle on proposition of proportionate ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Rs. 5,93,744/- while granting deduction under Section 80-IB(10) in respect of "Sai Jyot" project." 18. We have heard the parties. This ground is identical to ground no.2 of the assessee's appeal for the A.Y. 2006-07. It was noticed by the A.O. that the assessee has credited the other income to the extent of Rs. 5,93,744/-. The A.O. was of the opinion that the said receipts/income has not direct nexus with the construction activity. He, therefore, reduced the said receipts from the eligible profit declared by the assessee. The assessee carried the issue before the Ld. CIT (A) but without success. Nothing is placed before us to show the nature of the receipt. We have already adjudicated identical issue in the A.Y. 2006- 07. As the required details are not available with us, we restore this issue to the file of the A.O. to decide the same after considering our decision in assessee's appeal for the A.Y. 2006-07. Accordingly, ground no.1 is allowed for the statistical purposes. 19. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the assessee Is not pressing ground no.2, as ground no.2 is not pressed the same is dismissed as not pressed. 20. Ground no.3 re....