TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 518
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....#39; for short), Mumbai, dated 31st January, 2014 in Income Tax Appeal No.3131/Ahd/2010. The assessment year is 2007-2008. The following two questions are proposed as substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether on law and on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. ITAT was justified in concurring with the CIT(A) that all the conditions for claiming deduction u/s. 80IB (10) of the Act have been met without appreciating the fact that the CIT(A) has accepted that the size of the plot on which the project has been constructed to be of more than one acre without there being a proper subdivision? (ii) Whether on law and on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in holding that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....would be deductible u/s.80IB(10) of the Act and that the same is in the nature of reimbursement of expenses without appreciating the fact that the firm is not eligible for deduction u/s.80IB(10) and that the payment is covered by provisions of section 194C of the Act?" 4. In Income Tax Appeal No. 44 of 2015 for the assessment year 2006-2007, same questions are proposed as substantial questions of law arising out of the ITAT order of the same date, but for the assessment year 2006-2007. 5. We would take the facts from the memo of Income Tax Appeal No. 1779 of 2014. The respondent builder is a partnership firm engaged in the business of building construction and development. It undertook construction of buildings B, C and D of a project....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d this conclusion by contending that the Commissioner has examined the issue thoroughly and after seeking a remand report from the Assessing Officer on various occasions. The Tribunal had already held in the case of Saroj Sales Organization vs. Income Tax Officer that such a claim for deduction is admissible. That decision applies with full force. The Tribunal then held that the Assessing Officer's reasons for disallowance cannot be sustained and in holding that it did not agree with the Revenue that the decision in the case of Saroj Sales Organization was wrongly followed and applied by the Commissioner. The Tribunal followed and applied the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Viswas Promoters Pvt. Ltd. vs. Ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....requirements to be fulfilled and just because construction is in accordance with the DCR does not mean that the construction is as per the approved plan. 10. Mr. Tejveer Singh submits that as far as the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) are concerned, they are not applicable to the case of the respondent assessee as the income of the firm would be deductible under Section 80IB (10) of the Act and that the same is in the nature of reimbursement of expenses. If the firm is not eligible for deduction under Section 80IB (10) of the Act, then that payment is covered by the provisions of Section 194C of the Act. In that regard, he places reliance upon an order dated 12th July, 2017 passed in Income Tax Appeal No.1688 of 2014 (The Commissioner of....