TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (12) TMI 1670
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red in allowing deduction u/s 80IB, for Rs.29,13,06,959/-. 2. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the assesses had transferred FSI to the associate concern for Rs.13,672/- as against the ready reckoner rate of Rs.11,520/-. 3. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) Ignored that the provisions of section 80IB(13) r.w.s. 80IA(10) were clearly applicable against the assessee 4. "Whether on the fact And circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the decision relied upon by him in the case of Aarti Project has been contested before the Hon'ble High Court and the appeal is still pending. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of development of immovable properties, including projects under Slum Rehabilitation Scheme of the Government of Maharashtra, in accordance with DCR 33(10). The assessee has filed its return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 on 30-11-2013, declaring total income of Rs. 63,72,61,220/- and which was revised on 31-03- 2015, declaring total income of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....modified by corrigendum dated 05.01.2011. 5. In its return of income filed for the previous year relevant to the year under consideration, the assessee had claimed deduction u/s,80IB(10) of the Act, for an amount of Rs.34,91,35,308/- being the sale consideration of FSI of 29,050 sq.feet generated from its Mayanagar project, for which approval was granted on 26.11.1998 and completed as per DCR 33(10). In response to the query raised as to the tenability of the claim, the assessee submitted an exhaustive reply vide its letter dated 17.12.2015 which has been extracted on pages 2 to 11 of the assessment order. The Assessing Officer, however, was not inclined to accede to the pleadings made by the assessee mainly for the following reasons: (a) since the claim for deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act on deemed sale made in A.Y. 2003-04 was already rejected and It was not contested in appeal, there was no justification for seeking relief under this very provision in the year under consideration; (b) the benefit of the notifications dated 03.08.2010 and 05.01.2011 could be availed of in respect of housing projects approved by SRA on or after 01.04.2004 and before 31.03.20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the beneficial period of exemption to A. Y 1998-99 which is much earlier than that mentioned in the notification which specifically mentioned that the same extends only to the projects approved from 01.04.2004 to 31.03.2008. D. Attention is also invited that the assessee is further claiming deduction of Rs, 34,91,35,308/- on the transfer of TDR of Rs. 39,71,71,600/- and not on actual receipt of consideration in cash or Cheque or equivalent means. Deduction u/s. 80-IB(10) is allowable on the actual consideration received. In this case, the actual consideration is not cash, cheques or Its equivalent but is in terms of right to construct in the form of FSI/TDR, It may be mentioned here that though the above has been part of litigation between the department and the assessee, there has been no finality on the issue by the judicial authorities which would show the correct path to be adopted. The issue of claim of deduction u/s. 80-IB(10) of the Act on the transfer TDR is not accepted by the department The decision of the Hon 'ble Bombay High Court in CIT v/s. Sonasha Enterprises ITA appeal no. 1391 of 2012 has not been accepted by the department and SLP vide D. No. 11467/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Act, precedent and the decision taken by the Assessing Officer himself on similar fact-situation in A.Y. 2015-16, was deleted the disallowance in his exhaustive order. It is against this order that the revenue is in appeal on the grounds mentioned hereinabove. 8. The Ld. DR submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) was erred in allowing deduction u/s 80IB (10) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for Rs. 34,91,35,308/-, without appreciating the fact that the assessee had transferred FSI to the associated concerns for Rs. 13,672/- as against ready reckoner rate of Rs. 11,520/-, ignoring detailed reasons brought out by the Ld.AO to deny the benefit. The Ld. DR, further submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) was erred in allowing the benefit, ignoring the fact that the provisions of section 80IB(13) r.w.s. 80IA(10) were clearly applicable against the assessee. He, further, submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has also failed to appreciate the fact that the decisions relied upon by Ld.CIT(A), in the case of Arthi Project and constructions vs DCIT in ITA No. 4190/Mum/2016, dated 05/01/2017 was not accepted by the department and appeal their against was filed before the Hon'ble Bombay High court. The Ld. DR, further submitted t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r should be upheld. 10. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below along with case laws cited by both the parties. The main dispute between the assessee and the Assessing Officer is with regard to availability of the benefit of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act, in light of proviso to section and also more particularly in light of clause (a) and (b) of said proviso. As per the said proviso, clause (a) and (b) regarding date of commencement and date completion of project has no application, if such project is approved by central or state Government under any laws. It is an admitted fact that the project on which the benefit of deduction was claimed u/s 80IB(10) of the Act, was approved by the state Govt. of Maharashtra, under SRA scheme. In this factual background, if you examine the claim of the assessee, we find that the Government does not compensate the developers the cost of construction of the tenements in slum development projects but only grants FSI, which could be utilized by them either for construction of saleable area in other projects, or sold in open market as per their choice. Since, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ear relevant to any assessment year from such housing project if. - (a) such undertaking has commenced or commences development and construction of the housing project on or after the 1st day of October, 1998 and completes such construction.- (i) in a case where a housing project has been approved by the local authority before the r! day of April 2004, on or before the 31st day of March, 2008; (ii) in a case where 3 housing project has been, or, is approved by the focal authority on or after the 1st day of April, 2004 but not later than the 31st day of March, 2005, within four years from the end of the financial year in which the housing project is approved by the local authority; (iii) in a case where a housing project has been approved by the focal authority on or after the 1st day of April, 2005, within five years from the end of the financial year in which the housing project is approved by the local authority. Explanation.- For the purposes of this clause,- (i) in a case where the approval in respect of the housing project is obtained more than once, such housing project shall be deemed to have been approved on the date on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce with the scheme of the Central or State Government. Since, the CIT(A) has extracted in extenso the findings recorded by the Tribunal in paragraph 4.16 on pages 23-26 of his order, for the sake of brevity, we refrain from repetition thereof. 15. The other objection of the Assessing Officer is that since the consideration for construction of the rehabilitation building was received in kind and not in cash/cheque, the benefit of S. 80-IB(10) of the Act would not available to the assessee. It is noted that this inference drawn by the Assessing Officer is also untenable as held in various decisions, cited before and considered by the CIT (A) in paragraph 4.19 of his order holding to the contrary. In the premises, we are of the considered view that the CIT (A) was justified in rejecting the argument of the Assessing Officer that since the consideration was received in kind and not in cash/cheque, the assessee was not entitled to the deduction in paragraph 4.19 of his order The order of the CIT (A), therefore, does not call for any interference on this count too. 16. Most importantly, in A.Y. 2015-16 also, a similar claim for deduction u/s. 80-IB(10) of the Act was preferred in r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on raised by the Assessing Officer that the FSI granted was sold to a group entity at an inflated rate, we find that the statute does not prohibit such sale to group concern. Further, the ready reckoner rate is not sacrosanct, and there might be innumerable reasons for demanding higher price. In any case, the transaction under consideration is supported by a valuation report submitted to A.O. in which the rate of FSI was supported with the help of three comparable instances. Further, the inference drawn by the Assessing Officer is based upon his own theory, and neither supported by any independent verification nor after discrediting the valuation submitted by the assessee for valid reasons. We, therefore, are of the considered view that the CIT(A) was justified in refuting the aforesaid stand taken by the Assessing officer. 19. The other objection raised by the Assessing Officer vide ground No. 4, is that since the order of the Tribunal in the case of Aarti Projects and Constructions v. DCIT [ITA No. 4190/Mum/2016 dated 05.01.2017] was not accepted by the Department and appeal there against was filed before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and the CIT (A) ought not have relied upon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ring relevant facts, has rightly allowed the benefit and deleted addition made by the AO. Hence, we are inclined to uphold the order of the ld. CIT(A) and dismissed appeal filed by the revenue. 22. In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. CO.No. 163/Mum/2019-ASST YEAR 2013-14 23. The assessee has raised the following grounds of cross objection: - "1. The learned CIT (A) ought to have directed the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance of Rs. 5,91,97,243/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(ii) of the Act on account of proportionate interest expenditure. 2. The learned CIT (A) ought to have directed the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance of Rs. 273,97,518/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(iii) of the Act in respect of other expenditure. 3. The learned CIT (A) ought to have directed the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance made u/s. 14A of the Act while calculating the book pro fit u/s, 115JB of the Act" 24. At the outset, the Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the cross objection filed by the assessee is delayed by 77 days, for which necessary petition along with a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... before the ITAT on or before 60 days from the date of receipt of impugned order. Further, the provision of section 253 of the Act provides inherent powers to the Tribunal to condone delay in filing appeal or cross objection, if the assessee makes out a case that said delay is not deliberate or for the reasons beyond the control of the assessee. Therefore, in order to condone the delay in filing appeal or cross objection, it is for the assessee to explain the reasons, which prevented the assessee to file appeal within prescribed time allowed under the Act. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme court, in the case of Collector of land acquisition vs Mst. Katiji (supra) had considered condonation of delay in filing appeal and held that when, technicalities and merits are pitted against each other, the substantial justice should prevail over technical consideration. The Hon'ble Court also explained that every day delay must be explained. In the light of above legal proposition, if we examine the case of the assessee, we find that the reasons given for not filing appeal or cross objection within time allowed under the Act, comes under the purview of reasonable cause as provided under the Act. We....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
................................................... 11. We have heard the rival submissions on this preliminary issue and perused the record. We noticed that an identical issue relating to condoning delay in filing the cross objection, which was filed belated after the advice received from other counsel was considered by the Coordinate Bench in the case of DBS Bank Ltd. (supra) and the delay was condoned with the following observations:.....,...............,................ 12. Accordingly, following the above said order of the Tribunal and also in order to render substantial justice to the assesses, we condone the delay and admit the cross objection. 28. The assessee is relied upon the decision of ITAT, Mumbai, in the case of Galaxy Medical devices Pvt.Ltd. vs ITO in ITA No. 3218/Mum/2010 dated 30/09/2011. In this case also exactly an identical situation arose and it was resolved by observing as under:- "4. We have heard the arguments of both sides and also perused the relevant material available on record The learned D.R. has submitted that the disallowance on account of travelling expenses was made by the A.O. on agreed basis as the A.R. of the assesses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee vide letter dated 26/02/2016, had worked out such disallowance at Rs. 2,73,08,768/- The Ld. AO, however computed the disallowances u/s 14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D at Rs. 8,65,06,011/-. 32. The Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the Ld.AO was erred in disallowed interest under Rule 8D(2)(ii), in respect of interest expenditure, ignoring the fact that the assessee has own funds amounting to Rs 1,658.28 crores, which exceeds the value of the investment of Rs. 594.29 crores. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utilities Power Ltd 313 ITR 340 (bom) and CIT vs HDFC Bank Ltd. (366 ITR 505(bom). The assessee has also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of CIT vs Reliance Industries Limited 410 ITR 466 (SC). The Ld. AR, further submitted that in respect of disallowances of expenditure under Rule 8D(2)(iii), the disallowances may be restricted to the extent of exempt income earned and only those investments, which have yielded such income be taken into account for arriving at the average value of investments, He, further submitted that if any suomoto disallowance....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the Ld. AO, disallowances contemplated u/s 14A shall be determined, in accordance with prescribed procedure provided under Rule 8D, whether or not the assessee has earned exempt income for the year under consideration. It is the contention of the assessee that when, own funds are in excess of investments made in shares and securities, which yield exempt income then no disallowances can be made towards interest expenditure under Rule 8D(2)(ii). The assessee further contended that insofar as, disallowances of other expenditure under Rule 8D(2)(iii), the said disallowances cannot shallow entire exempt income earned by the assessee for the year under consideration. In other words, it was argued that disallowances of expenditure should be restricted to the extent of exempt income earned for the year under consideration. 35. Having heard both the sides, we find merit in the arguments of the Ld. AR for the assessee for the reasons that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of CIT vs Reliance Industries Limited(supra) had considered an identical issue and held that no interest disallowances can be made u/s 14A of the Act, if own funds are sufficient to coverup the value of the inve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e file of Ld.AO for the limited purpose of ascertaining the fact with regard to the exempt income earned for the year under consideration and restrict disallowance of expenditure u/s 14A to the extent of exempt income; if at all any exempt income is earned for the year under consideration. Insofar as, the arguments of the Ld. DR that if disallowances u/s.14A is restricted to the extent of exempt income, then the assessed income may go below the return income, which is not permissible under the law. We find that the co-ordinate bench of ITAT, Mumbai 'E' bench in the case of M/s Sundaram Multipap vs DCIT in ITA No. 5327/Mum/2015 and cross objection no. 272Mum/2017 had considered an identical issue and by following another decision of co-ordinate bench in the case of TATA Industries Limited (supra) held the issue in favor of the assessee and accordingly, we reject the contention of the Ld. DR. 37. Coming to ground No.3 of cross objection which assail, the disallowance made u/s 14A, while calculating the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. We find that this issue has been squarely covered in favor of the assessee by the decision of ITAT, Mumbai bench in the case of Mrinalini Trading C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n directing the AO to reduce the amount of Rs.30 Cr., being provision for Debenture Redemption Reserve (DRR), while calculating income u/s. 115 JB.?." b)"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the decision of Hon'ble ITAT in assessee's own case for earlier year has not been accepted by the department and appeal is pending before the Hon'ble High Court?." 2. a) "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in allowing deduction u/s 801A(4) for Rs.12,6273967/--,?." b) "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee's scheme was approved on 05.06.2006 and the provisions of section 80IA(4)(iii) required approval under the Industrial Park Scheme 2008,?" 41. The brief facts of the case are that for the previous year relevant to the year under appeal, the assessee filed its return of income on 30.11.2014 declaring 'nil' income and a revised return was e-filed thereafter on 31.03.2016 repeating the same income. The return filed on 31.03.2016 was initially processed u/s. 14....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e to the profit and loss account prepared in accordance with the provisions of Part II and III of Sch. VI to the Companies Act 1956. (ii) As per Explanation - l(b) to section 115JB, the amounts carried to any reserves, by whatever name called, other than a reserve specified u/s. 32AC, are required to be added to the book profit declared. (iii) The proposed adjustment is covered under Explanation -l(b) to section 115JB, as discussed above. (iv) The amount involved was mentioned by the assessee itself as reserve and, therefore, is required to be adjusted and added back to the book profit in view of Explanation l(b) to section 115JB. In the present case the terminology as well as the nature of the reserve set aside is in the nature of a reserve other than the specified reserve. It is therefore squarely covered within the ambit of disallowances for the purpose of calculation tax u/s. 115JB of the Act. The said addition has also been made in earlier assessment years. The assessee has stated that the CIT(A) has decided the issue m its favour. It is pertinent to state that the decision was not accepted by the Department and further appeal was preferred ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....CIT 281 CTR 532, wherein it has been held that the amount transferred to the Special Reserve, pursuant to the provision of section 45-IC of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 and the amount transferred to the DRR, were includible in the book profit under clause (b) of the Explanation to section 115JB of the act. The Ld. DR, further referring to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme court, in the case of CIT vs National Rayon Corporation Limited (227 ITR 754), submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that provision for Debenture Redemption Reserve (DRR) would be includible in book profit computed u/s 115JB of the Act, 1961. The Ld.CIT(A) without appreciating these facts has directed the AO to excluded DRR from book profit computed u/s 115JB of the I.T. Act, 1961. 45. The Ld. AR for the assessee, on the other hand strongly supporting order of the Ld.CIT(A) submitted that this issue is squarely covered in favor of the assessee by the decision of ITAT, Mumbai in assessee's own case for AY 2012-13, in ITA No. 1962/Mum/2017, where under identical set of facts , the Tribunal by following the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High court in the case of CIT vs Raymond Ltd (2012) 21 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....purposes of determination of tax liability u/s. 115JB of the Act Notably, while computing the book profits for the purposes of Sec. 115JB of the Act, the assessee-company deducted a sum of Rs. 74,75,00,000/- which represented Debenture Redemption Reserve. The said amount was created out of the profits set-aside as Debenture Redemption Reserve, As per the Assessing Officer, the said Debenture Redemption Reserve was a reserve in terms of clause (b) of Explanation to Sec 115JB of the Act whereas according to the assessee, the said amount was not a reserve, but in the nature of an ascertained liability. The CIT(A) has since upheld the stand of the assessee by relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Raymond Ltd,, [2012] 209 Taxman 65 (Bom) as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Rayon Ltd., 227ITR 764 (SC). Accordingly, the CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to re-compute the book profits for the purposes of Sec. 115JB of the Act after excluding the amount of Rs. 74,75,00,000/- set aside by the assessee as Debenture Redemption Reserve. Against such a decision, Revenue is in appeal before us. 4. Befo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the AO on the perusal of return of income and other details filed by the assessee observed that assessee has set apart Rs. 30 crores towards the debentures and redemption reserve out of profit of the current year. The assessee was asked to justify the allowability of the said debentures redemption reserve from book profit clause (c) to explanation 1 to sect/on 115JB of the Act which was replied by the assessee vide written submission date 18.03.2014 submitting that during the year under consideration the company issued debentures of Rs. 245 crore and therefore while finalizing the accounts for the year ended 31.03.2012 company has appropriated Rs. 30 crores towards debentures redemption reserve out of the profits of the years. The ld. A.R. submitted that the assesse company has credited debentures redemption reserve to the extent of Rs. 30 crores under the provisions of section 117C of the Companies Act, 1956. While filing the return of income for A. Y. 2012-13 the said appropriation towards redemption reserve has been reduce from book profit as per explanation 1 to section 115JB of the Act. The reply of the assessee did not find favour with the AO and the AO came to the conclu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment of this Act, it shall create debenture redemption reserve for the redemption of such debentures, to which adequate amounts shall be credited, from out of its profits every year until such debentures are redeemed. (2) The amounts credited to the debenture redemption reserve shall not be utilized by the company except for the purpose aforesaid. (3) The company referred to in sub-section (1) shall pay interest and redeem the debentures in accordance with the terms and conditions of their issue. , (4) Where a company fails to redeem the debentures on the date of maturity, the Tribunal may, on the application of any or all the holders of debentures shall, after hearing the parties concerned, direct, by order, the company to redeem the debentures forthwith by the payment of principal and interest due thereon. (5) If default is made in complying with the order of the Tribunal under sub-section (4), every officer of the company who is in default, shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to a fine of not less than five hundred rupees for every day during which such default continues.," 50. We, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the Hon'ble Bombay High Court did not consider the fact that the Debenture Redemption Reserve operates in Capita! field and hence appropriation of profit is not deductible for fax purposes. Accordingly, 'the ld. Pr. CIT has taken the view that the decision rendered by Hon'ble Bombay High Court is per incuriurn. Whatever may be the reasoning given by id, Pr CIT, it cannot be denied that the id. Pr. CIT has taken different view in the mater, without noticing that he decision rendered by jurisdictional 'High Court is binding on him also. On the contrary, the claim made by the assessee was well as allowed by the gets support from the decision rendered by the jurisdictional! High Court, meaning thereby, the AO has followed binding decision of the jurisdictional High Court, which cannot be found fault with." 52. In view of the above, and considering facts and circumstance of this case, we are of the considered view that the amount of Rs.30 crores set apart was undoubtedly an ascertained liability and not a 'reserve' covered by clause (b) of Explanation (1) to S. 115JB of the Act, as inferred by the Assessing Officer and hence, the AO was, therefore, unjustified ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is also an ascertained liability and not a mere provision as has been held in the binding judgments of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court discussed hereinabove. It may also be stated that the aforesaid judgment, rendered by the non-jurisdictional High Court, was considered but still the issue was decided in favour of the assessee by the coordinate Benches of this Tribunal in Rachana Finance & Investment P. Ltd. and Repute Properties P. Ltd. v. ITO for A.Y. 2012-13 in ITA Nos. 5817 and 5816/Mum/2015 dated 31.05.2017. Similarly, in a subsequent order in the case of Housing Development and Infrastructure Ltd. v. Pr. CIT for A.Ys. 2009-10 and 2010-11 in ITA Nos. 3530-3531/Mum/2013 dated 10.01.2019 also, the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal, even after considering the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court had decided the issue in favour of the assessee. In the premises, the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court would not be applicable to the case of the assessee. 55. In this view of the matter and consistent with view taken by the coordinate bench, we direct the AO to delete additions made towards provisions for DRR to book pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bmitted that the approval for the industrial parks of the assessee was issued on 05.06.2006 which itself established that they were not covered by the 2008 Scheme. The CIT (A) in his elaborate order considered the detailed written submissions filed (page 160-181 of the paper book), the 2002 Scheme and 2008 Scheme, the requisite approvals granted to the assessee and various notification.; issued on the subject. In addition, the first appellate orders in A.Ys, 2005-06 and 2006-07 were also considered, and he has deleted the disallowance by observing as under: "8.19 Finance Act 1997 extended the benefits of tax holiday to industrial parks set up as per the Scheme of the Central government and notified in this regard The Industrial parks had to start operations between 1.4.1997 to 31.3.2002. This was subsequently amended to Industrial Parks to be set up by 31.3.2006. Now it is noted that the Industrial Parks developed by the appellant are under the Scheme of 2002 and are operative prior to 1.4.2006. The approvals by the Ministry of Commerce and the CBDT notifications clearly state so. Once the conditions stipulated are satisfied, the benefit is available for 10 consecutive yea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reason, as how the project approved before the Industrial Park Scheme, 2008 is eligible for deduction 80IA(4)(iii) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 59. The Ld. AR for the assessee, on the other hand, strongly supporting order of the Ld.CIT(A) submitted that the objections of the AO was untenable and it was rightly deleted by the CIT(A), because the industrial Park scheme, 2008 relied upon by the AO to reject the claim of the assessee did not apply to assessee case. The assessee had applied for approval of two Industrial Park, under 2002 Scheme and the approval were given by DIPP vide letter No. 5/09/02-IP &D dated 31/03/2004 vide letter No. 15/43/05 IP &D dated 09/2/2005 under Industrial Park Scheme, 2002. Further, the CBDT had also notified the said Industrial Park vide notification No. 129/2006 and 176/2006 dated 05/06/2006 and 12/06/2006 respectively. Since, the industrial parks of the assessee were duly approved by the DIPP and also, notified by the CBDT, the inference drawn by the AO to the contrary was unjustified and unwarranted. The Ld. AR further submitted that if you go through clause 4.1 and clause 5.6 of the Industrial Park, Scheme, 2008, it is not understood as to how the Ld.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the 2002 Scheme. This is evident from clause 4.1 and clause 5.6 of the 2002 Scheme itself, a copy of which is placed at pages 110-121 of the paper book. The aforesaid clauses are reproduced below for ready reference: "4. Criteria for approval- An undertaking shall be considered for notification under clause (iii) of sub-section (4) of section 80-IA of the Act, if it fulfills all of the following conditions, namely:- 1. The date of commencement of the Industrial Park should be on or after the 1st day of April, 2006 and not later than 31st of March, 2009. " "5. General Conditions:- ............................................................................................. 6. An industrial park approved under Industrial Park Scheme, 2002 will continue to be governed by the provisions of that Scheme to the extent it is not in contravention with the provisions of Act, as amended from time to time." 61. In view of the unambiguous language of clause 4.1 and clause 5.6 of the Industrial Park Scheme, 2008 extracted hereinabove, it is not understood as to how the Assessing Officer had inferred that the industrial parks of the assessee, for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 2003 has modified the notification of the approval letter dtd. 23th Aug. 2002. We find the Ministry of Commerce and Industry again vide their letter dtd. 315! December, 2004 has approved the revised application for modification wherein it was mentioned that Income-tax benefit u/s. 80lA(4)(iii) will be available only if the proposed number of Industrial units mentioned in para 1(vii) of this approval letter are located in the Industrial park. We find, a copy of such notification was forwarded to the Director (ITA -I), Office of Central Board of Direct Taxes, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi and a copy of which is placed at paper book pages 15 to 17. We find the assessee company has fulfilled all the requisite conditions for claiming deduction u/s. 80IA(4)(iii) of the Act. The requisite number of units located in Industrial Park were completed and the completion certificates were also obtained by 24h December 2003, a finding given by the Id CIT(A) and not controverted by the Id. D.R. Under these circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) allowing the claim of deduction u/s 80IA(4)(iii). The ground No. 1 raised by the Revenue is accordingly d....