2020 (10) TMI 406

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssment passed u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) dated 15/02/2016 & 19/02/2016 respectively by the ld. Income Tax Officer - 32(3)(4), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as ld. AO). Identical issues are involved in both the appeals, hence, with the consent of the ld. DR, the appeal for the A.Y.2013-14 is taken as the lead year and the decision rendered thereon would apply with equal force for A.Y.2014-15 also except with variance in figures. 2. We find that the revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal for A.Y.2013-14. (i) "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in allowing the deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the I.T.Act, 1961." (ii) "On ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ove grounds be set aside and that of the AO be restored." (vi) The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground." 2.1. The only effective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in granting proportionate deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 2.2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. 3. We have heard the ld. DR. We find that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of developers and builders. During the year under consideration, the assessee had disclosed profit from three projects namely 1.Radha Govind 2. Radha Krishna 3. Radha Madhav. The assessee is following Project Completion Meth....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e amalgamation while answering to Q.36 to 39. • Flat No. 1403 & 1404 has been amalgamated into single unit and have been booked one by an individual and the other by karta of HUF being the same individual. Thereby contravening the provisions contained in section 80IB(10)(f) of the Income Tax Act. • The assessee has not satisfactorily explained/ proved the eligibility of deduction u/s.80IB claimed by it, except providing the Form No.10CCB. It needs to be mentioned that submitting Form No.10 CCB is not a satisfactory /admissible proof taking into account the fact that in all the cases where deduction claimed by way of producing 10CCB but, later decided by the judiciary authorities that it is not eligible for claiming....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lats No. 901 and 902 in the said building. On this issue, Ld CIT-DR is of the opinion AO‟s views are required to be upheld. Per contra, Ld AR for the assessee brought our attention to various binding judgments and submitted that the denial of deduction on proportionate basis would meet the requirements of the said judgments and the principles of the natural justice. Some of the said decision relevant for the proposition of proportionate allowance of deduction includes Elegant Estates (383 ITR 49) (Bom); G V Corporation (38 SOT 174) (Mum. Trib); Nagarjun Homes (46 SOT 287) Hyd Trib etc. Further, notwithstanding the said argument, Ld Counsel also submitted that the provisions of clause (f) to section 80IB(10) of the Act are prospective ....