TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 820
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s powers u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). 2. The ld. PCIT noted from the assessment records that the assessee was engaged in the maintenance of various residential and commercial properties and was also engaged in operation and maintenance of Industrial Parks during the previous year relating to the AY 2012-13. Tax Audit Report (SI.No.26) revealed that the assessee claimed deduction of Rs.15,15,36,967/- u/s.80IA(4)(iii) for operation and maintenance of six industrial parks, and the same was allowed in the assessment. The ld. PCIT further noted that "Salarpuria Touchstone" was one of the six projects and the profit of Rs.1,62,44,959/- earned from this project was included in the total deduction claimed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has not enquired into the ineligibility of the project Salarpuria Touchstone u/s.80IA(4)(iii) of Act. Further, the ld. PCIT observed in respect of other project M/s Salarpuria Softzone maintained by the assessee that the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80IA(4)(iii) of the Act on the said project, which was allowed by the Assessing Officer. The ld. PCIT in this respect observed that M/s Salarpuria Softzone, an erstwhile firm, was later on converted into the company M/s Salarpuria Softzone Tech Park Ltd. w.e.f. 29.09.2008 and by virtue of an agreement dated 25.07.2006, the developer M/s Salarpuria Softzone transferred the right of operation and maintenance of the project to the assessee company M/s SPPL Property Management Pvt. Ltd. Tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on various grounds, e.g. that the ld. PCIT had obtained information and formed the view that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue from the record of the third party, whereas, as per the law, the ld. PCIT should have formed the opinion after examining the record of the assessee; that in some of the earlier years, the deduction has already been allowed to the assessee and that there was a change of opinion; that the Assessing Officer had examined and verified the issue and proper enquiries were made etc. etc., however, the ld. Counsel for the assessee-appellant namely Shri Sidharth Jhajharia, has been fair enough to submit that on merits, the project of the assessee "M/s Salarpuria Touchstone" was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ann.com 270 (Guj.). The relevant part of the order of the Tribunal is reproduced as under: "10. Similarly, Hon'ble Cujarat High Court in the case of Creative Infocity Ltd. Vs. Union Secretary [2012] 19 Taxmann.com 270 (Guj.) also held that, once Industrial Park was approved by Ministry of Commerce & Industry, CBDT has to suo motto issue notification and if there is delay on the part of the CBDT in issuing notification, it would not warrant assessee be denied benefit of deduction u/s. 801A(4)(ii) of the Act. Hon'ble High Court finally held under: "Once approval is given by the Commerce Ministry to the petitioner in terms of sub-rule [2] of Rule 18C, the Board is duty bound to notify the industrial parks for benefits....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l has not pressed any other ground either legal or on merits regarding the validity of the revision order passed by the ld. PCIT u/s 263 of the Act. 5. The ld. DR has also fairly agreed to the said submissions of the ld. AR and submitted that the order of the ld. PCIT may be modified accordingly. 6. In view of the above discussion, we find on examination of facts and law that the assessee is eligible for deduction in respect of project namely "Salarpuria Softzone" in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and also of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of erstwhile "Salarpuria Softzone" (supra). However, the assessee is not eligible to claim deduction u/s 80IA(4)(iii) in respect of his project namely ....