TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 504
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ld AR did not press for Ground No.4 during the course of hearing and hence the same is dismissed as not pressed. The only issue arising out of this appeal is regarding deduction under section 80-IB [10] of the Act even in respect of the apartments purchased from landowners which the assessee is contending by raising Ground 3 which reads as follows. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] is not justified in confirming the disallowance made by the learned assessing officer under section 80-IB[10] of the Act amounting to Rs. 2,02,31,525/- on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3.1. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] failed to appreciate that the entire sale proceeds received by the assessee from sale of apa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....remises of the assessee company on 14/12/2012 and in course of the survey, there was no income representing any concealed income or escaped income for the relevant assessment year found. However, after the completion of the survey operations, there was a notice u/s. 263 of the Act was issued to the assessee by the Commissioner of Income-tax proposing to set-aside the order of assessment passed u/s. 143[3] of the Act and in course of the said proceedings u/s. 263 of the Act, the CIT called upon the assessee to furnish certain details and clarifications. The assessee furnished the details called for and thereafter the CIT passed an order u/s 263 of the Act dated 27/03/2014, by which, he has set-aside the assessment order passed u/s. 143[3] of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0IB[10] of the Act. The AO also made an addition of Rs. 55,57,995/- towards cost excess claimed by the assessee on purchase of land. Accordingly, the AO concluded the assessment proceedings by the impugned order passed u/s 143[3] rws 263 of the Act dated 25/03/2015, making the following additions/disallowances to the returned income:- [a] Denying the claim of deduction u/s,80IB[10] Rs. 2,02,31,525/- [b] Addition in respect of land purchases Rs. 55,57,995/- 6. The assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) confirmed the order of the AO. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. Before us the ld AR made written submissions in support of claim of deduction u/s.80IB(10) the relevant extract whic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a separate transaction entered into by the assessee to deny the deduction claimed by the assessee. Without prejudice to the above, even if it is assumed that the payments made by the assessee are to purchase the flats from the landowners, even then, these payments are made towards purchase of the landowner's share of the built-up area in the eligible project developed by the assessee. None of the landowners have claimed the deduction u/s. 80IB[10] of the Act and hence, the assessee is entitled to claim the same having regard to the parity of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of M/s. PRAMOD & OTHERS in ITA NO.231 of 2010 dated 29/02/2012. Hence, the denial of the deduction is unwarranted and the result....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....which need to be considered in total, subject to other conditions mentioned in the said section. The ld AR brought to our attention the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs Shravanee Constructions (ITA No.421/422 of 2009) where the Hon'ble Court has held that:- "9. In that view of the matter, the contention of the revenue that the assessee did not undertake any developmental or building activity and therefore, he cannot individually claim the benefit has no substance. That is not the requirement of law. Keeping in mind, the object with which this provision is introduced when all persons who have made investments in this housing project which is for the benefit of middle and lower class people and, when they have comp....