TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 969
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the following grounds before us: "1. On the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case and in law the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO in not allowing deduction of Rs. 2,76,05,035/- u/s. 80IB(10). 2. The Appellant craves leaves to add, to amend, alter, modify and/or withdraw any or all of the above grounds of appeal, each of which are without prejudice to one another. The appellant prays this Hon'ble Tribunal to delete the additions/disallowance by the Ld. A.O and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). 2. The fact in brief is that assessee has filed its original return of income on 31.10.2007 declaring total income at Rs. 13,71,620/-. The assessment u/s 143(3) of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lained vide letter dated 15.03.2013 before the assessing officer that it is entitled for deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act on the aforesaid income which is attributable to the business of the assessee. Regarding the claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act, the AO stated that the project was completed in 2008-09, therefore, assessee was not entitled for deduction u/s 80IB(10) in the assessment year 2007-08. 3. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the A.O has carried the matter before the CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide order dated 11.11.2016 retreating the facts stated by the assessing officer. 4. During the course of appellate proceedings before us, the ld. Counsel at the outset referr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arried out on 23.12.2008 the assessee has disclosed unaccounted receipt from Pimpari Project amounting to Rs. 33,54,000/-. The assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act on the aforesaid unaccounted receipt of Rs. 33,54,000/-. In the original assessment u/s 143(3) the claim of deduction u/s 80IB of the Act for assessment year 2007-08 was denied on the ground that project was not completed in that year. However, the ITAT vide order Number 2955/Mum/2012 has held that assessee is entitled for the deduction after following the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vandana Properties (2013) 353 ITR 36 (Bom). After giving effect to the order of ITAT the assessing officer has already allowed the claim of deductio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alling for its inclusion in the total income. Once it is agreed to be `on-money' from the flatsbookings at the time of its inclusion in the total income, a fortiori, such an income, being from sale of flats albeit received as on-money, qualifies for the deduction as well. We, therefore, overturn the impugned order on this score and order to allow deduction u/s 80IB(10) on such amount." After perusal of material on record we find that it is undisputed fact that impugned on money of Rs. 33,54,000/- was pertained to the undisclosed business receipt attributable to the Pimpri project of the assessee. The A.O has not proved contrary to the claim of the assessee that the aforesaid on money was business receipt. Therefore, following the decisio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed 31.03.2018. In this regard the assessee has filed paper book comprising copies of form No. 1 & 5 of Vivad se Vishwas Scheme along with submission made before the ld. CIT(A). On the other hand, the ld. D.R could not controvert the contention of the ld. Counsel. 8. Heard both the sided and perused the material on record. The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee holding that assessee has opted for Vivad se Vishwas Scheme vide application dated 21.01.2021. However, the ld. Counsel submitted that the assessee has not opted for Vivad se Vishwas Scheme in respect of the appeal filed against levied of penalty of Rs. 11,28,956/- pertaining to the year under consideration. After considering the submission of the assessee and m....