2022 (7) TMI 124

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....by the assessee u/s.80IB(10) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called 'the Act') on account of `extra work'. 4. Tersely, the facts are that the assessee is a developer and promoter in real estate. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the assessee claimed deduction u/s.80IB(10), inter alia, on receipts from 'extra work' done amounting to Rs.2,99,910/-. The assessee was asked to furnish the details of such extra work, which he could not. In the absence of such details, the AO rejected the claim of deduction on it. The ld. CIT(A), too, upheld the disallowance pro tanto. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee has come up in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. I have heard both the sides and gon....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lso qualified for the deduction. Similar position prevailed before the ld. CIT(A) as well inasmuch as the assessee could not state the nature of `extra work'. There is no change in the factual scenario before the Tribunal as well on this score. In view of the fact that the assessee failed to lead any evidence whatsoever to show the nature of extra work done, the action taken by the authorities below cannot be taken exception to. I, therefore, uphold the impugned order on this issue. 6. The only other ground which survives in this appeal is against the sustenance of addition of Rs.11.00 lakh, being, Architect fees. The AO, on perusal of details of Legal and professional charges, observed that a sum of Rs.4.00 lakh was paid to Ms. Monali Mut....