TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 780
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is composite order. 3. For the sake of reference, we proceed to extract the grounds raised by the assessee for the A.Y. 2011-12 : "1. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 4,24,27,370/- on account of rejection of claim for deduction of profits and gains arising from Industrial Park u/s.80IA(4)(iii). 2. The deduction u/s.80IA(4)(iii) may be granted to the assessee and his total income be reduced to that extent." 4. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee mentioned that the only issue which requires adjudication by the Tribunal relates to the allowability of claim of deduction u/s.80IA(4)(iii) of the Act. The claim of other issues relating to disallowance u/s.14A for A.Y. 2012-13 and others are required to be dismi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....required under the Industrial Park Scheme 2002. Assessee moved another application before the empowered committee seeking change in number of units in the Industrial Park from 6 to 3 units and got approval on 11-06-2012. Since the claim of the assessee was accepted by the Ld.CIT(A)-II, Pune for the A.Yrs. 2009-10 and 2010-11, the assessee submitted before the AO to consider the same for the A.Yrs. 2011-12 and 2012-13. However, the AO distinguished the decisions of the Ld.CIT(A)-II, Pune and was of the view that Para 8 of the Notification talks about the 'commencement of industrial park' and not 'commencement of industrial units' and the period of Industrial Park Scheme as notified by the Central Govt. was from 01-04-1997 to 31-03-2006. Even....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....u/s.133A the assessee had withdrawn such claim made u/s.80IA(4). According to the Assessing Officer pendency of the review petition before the concerned authority did not make the assessee eligible for the said deduction. We find in appeal the Ld.CIT(A) after obtaining a remand report from the Assessing Officer and considering the comments of the assessee to such remand report allowed the claim of deduction u/s.80IA(4), the reasons of which are already reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. 67. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) on this issue. We find identical issue had come up before the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Kolte Patil Developers Ltd. vs. DCIT and vice versa vide ITA Nos. 1411 to 1415/PN/2013 and ITA Nos.....