2014 (10) TMI 973
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... given in the following paragraphs of this order. 2. Firstly, we shall take up the appeal ITA No.423/M/2010 for the AY 2006-07 as a lead appeal. This appeal filed by the assessee on 18.01.2010 against the order of the CIT (A)-34, Mumbai dated 16.11.2009. In this appeal, assessee raised the folloiwng grounds which read as under: "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld CIT (A) erred in confirming the disallowance made by the AO of deduction u/s 80IB(10) on income from leave & license fees of Rs. 49,12,503/- and Miscellaneous Income of Rs. 14,500/-. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) erred in confirming the levy of interest by the AO of Rs. 1,89,833/- u/s 234B of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....entioned that the interest payments received by the assessee from the debtors, relating to the sale proceeds, were also found eligible for claim of deduction u/s 80IB of the Act. In support of his argument, Ld Counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of ITAT, Hyderabad in the case of ACIT vs. Biotech Medicals (P) Ltd [2009] 119 ITD 143 (Hyd). Further, Ld Counsel also relied on the decision of the ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Tata Infomedia Ltd vs. ACIT [2009] 116 ITD 426 (Mum), which is delivered in the context of deduction u/s 80Q of the Act, wherein it was held that advertisement income constitutes eligible profits. In this case, the income is earned on sale of yellow pages. Drawing parallal to the above instances, Ld Counsel f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act, we find, the Income Tax Authorities has not gone into the facts relating to this income. As per the Ld Counsel, the same constitutes reimbursements of maintenance charges by the flat owners. This is the reimbursement of expenses incurred by the assessee to the housing society of the housing project. Such reimbursement does not constitute income of the assessee. The Revenue Authorities have wrongly held it as income and treated the same as ineligible for claim of deduction. In our opinion, this matter should visit the file of the AO for fresh adjudication after analyzing the relevant facts. Accordingly, we remand this part of the ground no.1 raised by the assessee for the AY 2006-07 and allowed for statis....