TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 962
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reads as follows:- "2. The NFAC, Delhi erred in sustaining the action of the Assessing Officer in refusing to admit fresh claim made through revised statement in claiming a sum of Rs. 9,16,27,448/- as exempted income arising from sale of exempted category of agricultural land during the assessment year under consideration without assigning proper reasons and justification. 3. The NFAC, Delhi failed to appreciate that reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Limited on the facts of the present case was erroneous and not sustainable in law and ought to have appreciated that same would not bar the First Appellate Authority to consider the same as additional claim in view of the law declared by the Madras High Court in the context of powers of First Appellate Authority, thereby vitiating the decision to reject such fresh claim forming part of the return of income. 4. The NFAC, Delhi failed to appreciate that having placed on record the fact of the disputed agricultural land being situated beyond 8 km from nearest municipality, details of agricultural activities carried on in such agricultural land, as well as revenue recor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2011-12 is completed. It is seen the assessee company has sold lands in padur and kazhipattur village jointly along with the twe individual directors and offered the sale proceeds to tax. On the other hand in the individual director's return of income it was claimed that the sale was only agricultural land so it is exempt from tax (in the individual hands). During the hearing the AR was asked to clarify when the company has offered to tax how it was exempt In Individuals hands. Then the AR vide its reply dated 17/2/2014 submitted a revised computation statement claiming to exempt the income offered by the company since it was a sale of agricultural land and also quoted the judgment in the case of Perlos telecommunication Vs ACIT company circle V(1) Chennai. The AR claim was examined it is not possible to entertain this claim as it was not propounded by the assessee through a revised return. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Goetze (India) Limited v. Commissioner of Income tax reported in 284 ITR 323 (SC) had held that there was no provisions under the Income tax Act to make amendment in the return of income by modifying an application at assessment stage without re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed in para 4 that it does not impinge upon the jurisdiction of the appellate authorities; hence, the action of the FAA in curtailing his powers on this basis is unsustainable in law. It is further submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the binding judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT v. Abhinitha Foundation (P) Ltd., reported in (2017) 396 ITR 251 (Madras) wherein under similar circumstances, a claim not made in the return but raised during assessment proceedings with supporting material was held to be admissible. It was stated that the Hon'ble Court also distinguished Shriram Investments as being confined to cases involving a non-est, time-barred revised return. Therefore, it was contended that judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Abhinitha Foundation (P) Ltd., supra is squarely applicable to the facts of present case. It was stated that the reliance on Paragon Biomedical India (P) Ltd., supra is also inapplicable, as that case dealt with substitution of a claim between two distinct provisions without a revised return, whereas in the present case, the claim remains the same, namely exemption on sale of agricultural....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the relevant material is already on record. The Hon'ble Court had also considered the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Shriram Investment, supra relied on by the FAA. It is to be noted that the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Shriram Investments vs. CIT, supra (relied on by the FAA) was confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2024) 468 ITR 372 (SC). However, the said case is distinguishable on facts. The Hon'ble Apex Court at para 8 of the judgment had stated that the Tribunal did not exercise its power u/s. 254 of the Act to consider the new claim made by the assessee. Instead, the Tribunal directed the AO to consider the assessee's claim which the AO did not have jurisdiction to consider the fresh claim since the revised return was filed beyond the time prescribed u/s. 139(5) of the Act. The reliance placed by the Revenue on Paragon Biomedical India (P) Ltd., supra is also distinguishable on facts, as the present case does not involve substitution of a claim under different provisions. We take note of the settled legal position laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT, supra and Ju....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The appellant is not the owner of the entire land as some of the land on which housing projects have been undertaken belongs to the directors of the company; and The appellant first makes the agreement for sale of undivided share in the land to the buyers and then executes construction contract of the flat and therefore by entering into a construction agreement with the land owner, the appellant bis merely acting as contractor for the construction of the flat and as per Explanation to the sub-section (10) of section 80-IB by the Finance Act, 2009 with retrospective effect from 01/04/2001 the deduction under section 80IB(10) is not allowable to any undertaking which is includes the housing project as a work contract". From the above, it is clear that the appellant's assertion that my predecessor's order encompasses the issue is incorrect. 7.4 The maximum built-up area for residential units in the housing project must be 1000 square feet, as specified by clause (c) of section 80IB of the Act, if they are located within Delhi or Mumbai or in a 25 kilometre radius of either city, and 1500 square feet if they are located outside of these are....