2011 (1) TMI 1542

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....directing the Assessing Officer to allow deduction u/s.80IB(10) on the sale proceeds of the stilt parking. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the A.O. on account of re-allocation of expenses as in General P&L A/c. the assessee has debited expenses against the income of Saki Naka Project only, which is fully taxable." 2. The assessee is engaged in the business of development of real estate projects. Assessee has ongoing projects in hand at Poisor & Sakinaka , Andheri, etc. During the course of assessment proceedings, assessee was specifically asked to submit the detail in respect of income derived from sale of stilt parking and income derived from ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....IB(10) of the Act. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A). 3. The learned CIT(A) has observed that parking is part and parcel of the housing project that is the first and foremost requirement of the residents of the residential units. Therefore, it cannot be said that sale proceeds of stilt parking is outside the purview of sec.80-IB(10) of the Act. The parking are in built and approved in the residential structure of the residential building and no such separate approval are taken. The AO has not brought on record that which part of expenditure claimed to have been incurred for parking is bogus. After considering the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Brahma Associates v. JCIT, he d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e above findings of the Tribunal, find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A). 6. The other issue raised in this appeal relates to the expenses debited against income from Saki Naka project which is fully taxable. The facts of the case in brief are that during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that apart from rent, dividend or interest assessee has credited in its profit and loss account, profit from Poiser project and Saki Naka project were shown at Rs. 25,94,15,536/- and Rs. 10,16,72,553/- respectively. Further the assessee has debited several expenses against this income. However, the assessee has claimed deduction u/s.80IB @ 100% at Rs. 25,94,15,536/- i.e. entire profit of Poiser project and entire....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l heads of Poiser Project and the Assessing officer has also not pointed out a single instance in his order as to which expenditure was related to Poiser Project but the same was diverted to Saki Naka Project for reducing the taxable income. He has worked simply on presumption without bringing any evidence on record. On the other hand, the appellant has maintained separate books of accounts and bank account for the Poiser Project wherein no discrepancy was pointed out by the Assessing Officer. So, in the absence of any conclusive evidence and investigation done by the Assessing Officer and in view of the submission and various case laws relied upon by the appellant, I am of the view that the Assessing Officer was not justified in allocating....