TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (10) TMI 571
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Revenue is that CIT (Appeals) held assessee to be eligible for deduction under Section 80-IB(10) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). As per the Revenue, assessee was only a contractor appointed by the prospective flat buyers for constructing flats and was not an undertaking, which was developing a project, on its own. For assessment year 2008-09, one more grievance has been raised by the Revenue that the CIT(Appeals) deleted an addition of Rs. 1,83,38,125/- made by the Assessing Officer, under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 2. Facts apropos are that assessee, engaged in the business of construction engineers, civil contractors and building developers, had filed its returns for the impugned assessment years, inter alia, claimin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tractor. He, therefore, denied the claim of Section 80-IB(10) for both the years. 3. In its appeals before CIT(Appeals), argument of the assessee was that the land was purchased by the assessee out of its own funds and it had also effected payments to the land owners before embarking on the project. The cost of land was accounted in the books of the assessee-firm and shown it as stock. The agreement with land owners was entered by Shri A. Mohammed Ali, its Managing Partner, and such agreement was only on behalf of the firm though not specifically stated so in such agreement. Assessee was a project developer and just because the land permissions for development of project was obtained in the name of its Managing Partner, the claim could n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....B(10) of the Act. Reliance was placed on the decisions of co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of ACIT v. Smt. C. Rajini [9 ITR (Trib.) 487] as also that of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Radhe Developers (2012) 204 Taxman 543. 5. Now before us, learned D.R., assailing the orders of CIT(Appeals), submitted that assessee was only a building contractor and came within the ambit of Explanation added to Section 80-IB(10) vide Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 with retrospective effect from 1.4.2001. 6. Per contra, learned A.R. strongly supported the orders of the CIT(Appeals). 7. We have perused the orders and heard the rival submissions. In our opinion, there can be no doubt that assessee was developing the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IT(Appeals) on this issue. 8. This leaves with the issue of deletion of addition made by the A.O. under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act, for assessment year 2008-09. 9. Assessee had received a loan of Rs. 1,83,38,125/- from M/s South India Shelters (P) Ltd., wherein partners of the assessee-firm also Directors. Assessing Officer considered it as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act, since assessee was unable to substantiate with relevant document that the loan was a part of its normal business with the said company. 10. In its appeal before CIT(Appeals), assessee argued that the loan received as well as re-paid were part of its business transaction. As per the assessee, it had not received any loan or advance from the comp....