TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 475
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder Section 80IA(4)(iii) and 80IB(10) of the Act aggregating to Rs. 4,65,70,805 (i.e. Rs. 2,32,51,080 and Rs. 2,33,19,725 respectively). A co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in its order in ITA No.99/Bang/2011 dt.2.1.2013 allowed the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Act but restored the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80IB(4)(iii) to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh examination. The Assessing Officer after examining the assessee's claim passed an order under Section 143(3) rws 254 of the Act rejecting the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80IB(4)(iii) of the Act. For Assessment Year 2011-12, the assessee filed its return of income on 19.11.2011 declaring income of Rs. 25,04,250. The case was taken up for scrutiny and the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act vide order dt.29.11.2013 wherein the income of the assessee was determined at Rs. 3,54,23,189 due to the denial of deduction of Rs. 3,29,18,939 claimed under Section 80IA(4)(iii) of the Act. 2.2 On appeal, the learned CIT (Appeals)-I, Bangalore disposed off the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2005-06 and 2011-12 vid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....diction Bench of the ITAT in the case of Primal Projects PVt. Ltd. (139-TTJ-233) which has not yet reached finality. 7. For these and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, it is humbly prayed that the order of the CIT (Appeals) be reversed and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 8. The appellant craves leave to add, to alter, amend or delete any of the grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal." 4. The Grounds at S.Nos.1, 7 & 8 are general in nature and therefore no adjudication is called for thereon. 5. Grounds at S.Nos.2 to 6 Deduction u/s.80IA(4)(iii) of the Act. 5.1 The Grounds raised at S.Nos.2 to 6 (supra) are in respect of a single issue of assailing the impugned orders of the learned CIT (Appeals) for allowing the assessee the deduction claimed under Section 80IA(4)(iii) of the Act by placing reliance on the orders of the CIT (Appeals) for Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2010-11 in the assessee's own case. 5.2 At the outset of the hearings before us itself, the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee submitted different co-ordinate benches of this Tribunal in the assessee's own case in ITA N....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the AO. as the same was never brought to the notice of the AO, who sent his report by his letter dated 14-03-2013. The assessee filed further submission by its letter dated 27-03-2013 and reiterated that their case is squarely covered by the decision of the ITAT in the case of Primal Projects Pvt. Ltd., cited above, that even otherwise the company satisfied the other conditions, that while working out the allocable area, the AO had considered the super built up area as allocated area, that there was difference between 'super built up area' and 'allocable area', that it was arrived at by reducing 26.52% from the super built-up area, that if the said formula was considered, more than 50% of allocable area was not leased to IFlex Solutions Ltd., as made out by the AO. The assessee also furnished the details unit-wise allocable area and super built-up are leased to the various tenants. After considering the facts and reasons given by the AO in the assessment order as well as remand report and the submissions made by the assessee,FAA held that the assesse had fulfilled the first set of statutory condition for claiming deduction u/s. 80IA(4)(iii) of the Act,that the AO had denied the de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ded independently. Activities were carried on as independent units.In such circumstances, it was very difficult to ignore the contention of the assessee. The assessee had constructed multistoried buildings for the purpose of developing infrastructure facilities as approved by the Ministry of Commerce & Industry itself was a testimony that the assessee company had developed the infrastructure facility in the form of multi-storied structure to accommodate independent units to operate for themselves. Those identities and indualities did not disappear only for the reason that the entire developed area had been leased out to a single company. It was not possible to insist that every floor of the structure should be leased out to different companies. The test is not that who operates the independent units run in the multi-storied structure. It is also not the question whether all the stories are occupied by one tenant or different tenants. The test to be applied is the functional test. The unit must physically independent with physically independent with independent facilities and instrumentation, power connection, door number and the facility of functioning independently i.e every unit ....