TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 339
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed therein, the same have been heard together and are being disposed of by a single consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 2. First we shall take up the appeal of the Revenue for A.Y. 2013-14 being ITA No. 2202/KOL/2016, which is directed against the order of ld. CIT(Appeals)-9, Kolkata dated 30.09.2016. 3. The common issue involved in Grounds No. 1 & 3 of this appeal relates to the deletion by the ld. CIT(Appeals) of the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on account of assessee's claim for deduction under section 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. The assessee in the present case is a partnership firm, which is engaged in the business of Developing and Building Housing Projects. The return of income for the year under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and following the decision of his predecessor in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2012-13 rendered vide an order dated 21.08.2015, the ld. CIT(Appeals) deleted the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on account of assessee's claim for deduction under section 80IB. 6. We have heard the arguments of both the sides on this issue and also perused the relevant material available on record. As agreed by the ld. Representatives of both the sides, this issue relating to assesee's claim for deduction under section 80IB as involved in the year under consideration is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the orders of the Tribunal passed in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2010-11 and 2012- 13. Copies of the said ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee was required by the Assessing Officer to explain the basis of such allocation. In reply, it was submitted by the assessee that the entire project was supposed to take 4 to 5 years to complete and, therefore, the development cost of the Project was likely to be increased from time to time. It was submitted that the development cost thus was not a fixed expenditure and the quantum of the same was being assessed on completion of each Phase. It was submitted that after completion of each Phase, the total development cost was considered by taking the development cost actually incurred till date plus the amount of development cost to be incurred to complete the remaining project. It was submitted that such total development cost accordingly wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....12 i.e AY 2012-13. During this year, the receipts are for construction completed before 31/03/2012, which is eligible for deduction u/s 80IB and remaining receipts are for ongoing construction after 31/03/2012 which is not eligible for deduction us 80IB. This has led AO to believe that more development cost is attributable to the receipts for which no deduction u/s 80IB is allowable. However, there is no basis for such belief. The appellant has submitted before the AO as well as during appellate proceedings that he has been attributing development costs on the basis of a formula which is same for periods for which he is entitled to deduction u/s 80lB & other period when his income is fully taxable without any deduction u/s 80IB. The AO has ....