2016 (11) TMI 1511

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oking the fact that the assessee has executed the building project as works contract since neither the ownership rights in the property nor the building was constructed by assessee. 3. The CIT(A) has erred in relying on the Hon. Karnataka High court decision in the case of M/s. Shravanee constructions though the Hon. Supreme court has only dismissed the SLP filed by the department by way of non-speaking order which does not tantamount to declaration of law under Article 141 of the constitution as held by the Supreme Court in 245 ITR 360. 4. The CIT(A) erred in allowing the deduction overlooking the fact that the permission of local authorities for construction of building was not obtained in the name of the assessee. 5. The CIT(A) err....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....essee in respect of the first phase consisting of 288 flats. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that first phase as only a part of the project which had not reached completion. 10. The CIT(A) erred in relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Vandana Properties since in that case, the assessee had obtained phase-by-phase approval whereas in the instant case the assessee had not obtained phase-wise approval but for the entire project. 11. The CIT(A) erred in giving a liberal construction of section 80-IB when the conditions specified in the section were not satisfied by the assessee. 12. The CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessment order passed deserves to be cancelled for the reason that....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs Trend Electronics 379 ITR 456 and it was held that when the AO failed to furnish the reasons recorded for re-opening of the assessment, the re-assessment order passed by the AO is bad in law and the same was quashed by the Tribunal. He submitted that in the present case also, reasons were not furnished by the AO and hence, the assessment order has been rightly quashed by the ld. CIT(A). 4. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that as per ground no.12 raised by the revenue, this is the contention of the revenue that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in quashing the assessment order for non-furnishing of reasons recorded by the AO for re-opening and the claim is on the basis that the ass....