2020 (5) TMI 138

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... share income received by the assessee from Avinash Hi-tech City-2 Society (in short Society). Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income from interest, development and operation of SEZ as co-developer filed her return of income declaring total income at Rs. 96,300/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) and the case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2)was served on the assessee. The assessee has filed the return of income admitting total income of Rs. 16,29,025/- and claimed the deduction of Rs. 14,50,050/- under Chapter VIA relating to the share income received from the Society which was claimed as exemption u/s 80IAB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'Act'). During the assessment proceedi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... L&T Phonix info parks private limited developed the land and allotted cold shell of H1B building towards the share of the assessee out of the total property developed. The society further made developments to meet the norms specified by the SEZ authority. The share income of Rs. 14,49,029/- from the development business of the society was received by the assessee which was offered as income in her hands. 2.1. The Society is separately assessed to tax and filed its return of income admitting 'Nil' income claiming deduction u/s 80IAB of the Act which was disallowed by the AO and the issue travelled to the ITAT and the ITAT in its order in I.T.A. No.726/Hyd/2017 dated 29.12.2017 for the A.Y. 2013-14 held that the Society is entitled for de....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e assessee and the matter has reached the finality. What is received by the assessee was only the share of income which was already offered to tax in the hands of the Society, therefore, argued that the same income cannot be taxed twice, once in the hands of the society as well as in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, argued that both the lower authorities erred in taxing the same income which was already suffered to tax, hence requested to delete the addition and allow the appeal of the assessee. 4. On the other hand, the Ld.DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. In the instant case, what was received by the assessee was only share of income fr....