TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (1) TMI 507
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 3. The assessee in ITA No.1835/PN/2014 has raised the following grounds of appeal :- 1. The Learned CIT(A) and AO erred in Law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 68,13,244 being interest received as "Income from Other sources" as against business receipts as claimed by the appellant. 2. The learned CIT(A) & AO ought to have appreciated that there was direct nexus between Interest received, Interest paid as business receipts. 4. The Revenue in ITA No.1748/PN/2014 has raised the following grounds of appeal :- 1. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in allowing the assessee's claim of deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the I.T. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eals) erred in failing to appreciate that there is no vested right of an assessee in so far as taxation provisions are concerned and where an amendment has been brought to restrict the eligibility conditions for deduction, it should be interpreted that certain assesses or their projects would be rendered ineligible, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Jute & Industries Ltd., 120 ITR 921. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in allowing the assessee's claim of deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the l.T. A ct, 1961 in respect of profit from the project 'Brahma Avenue' by relying on decisions for A.Ys.2006-07,2007-08,2008-09 & 2009-10. 7. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct 'Brahma Avenue'. GROUNDS WITH RESPECT TO PROJECT BRAHMA SUNCITY 11. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in allowing the assessee's claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) in respect of profit from the project "Brahma Suncity" ignoring the fact that each flat and its so called next flat called A providing only living room and toilet were always conceptualized, considered, marketed and sold as one flat with one electric meter. 12. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in allowing the above deduction ignoring the fact that the wall between the above two units was never built and therefore area of all the flats in those buildings was always more than 1500 sq ft when sold. 13. The learned Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee's own case in earlier years. It was also pointed out by the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee that the name of assessee changed from M/s. Bramha Builders to M/s.Bramha Corp Ltd. and the partnership concern was converted into a Limited Company. 6. The issue arising in the appeal filed by the assessee is as to assessability of interest income and whether the same is to be assessed as 'Income from other sources' or as 'Business income'. 7. Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessee had originally filed the return of income at Nil but at later revised the return of income declaring income at Nil after claiming deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act at Rs. 28,28,37,845/-. The assessee was engaged in the bus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....come of Rs. 68,13,244/- which was not offered to tax by the assessee clubbing it with the business receipts and claimed the deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act. The Assessing Officer also noted that in the preceding years, the said interest income was taxed as 'Income from other sources' and consequently, the same was held to be not 'Business income' of the assessee. 8. The CIT(A) relying on the appellate order for earlier years, was of the view that the assessee is entitled to prorata deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act in respect of each of the project. However, in respect of interest income earned by the assessee, the order of Assessing Officer was upheld and the assessee was held to be not entitled to treat the same as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ide this issue against the assessee. The grounds of appeal No.1 and 2 raised by the assessee are thus, dismissed and the appeal of assessee is dismissed. 14. In respect of grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue, the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that identical grounds of appeal were raised in assessment year 2008-09 which are reproduced at pages 2 to 5 of the order of Tribunal dated 31.10.2014. The perusal of directions of the Tribunal in paras thereunder reflects that the issue having been considered elaborately by the Tribunal in respect of each of the project undertaken by the assessee. The Assessing Officer has been directed to allow prorata deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act. The learned Depa....