Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: empanelment :: cpt :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: VAT RATES :: form 3cd :: due date for vat payment :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: VAT Audit :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: TDS :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: list of goods taxed at 4%
 
 
From the Courts »
 Reliance Communications Ltd vs. DDIT (ITAT Mumbai)
  Sushila Devi vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)
 Ashok Prapann Sharma vs. CIT (Supreme Court)a
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
 M.K.Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-06
 Arshia Ahmed Qureshi Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-21
 CHAUDHARY SKIN TRADING COMPANY Vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-21
  Sushila Devi vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
 Deputy Director Of Income Tax Vs. Virage Logic International

Nobel Biocare India Private Limited Fortune 2000, 1st Floor, C-Wing, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051Vs. Dy. CIT-9(2), Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020
November, 11th 2014
                  ,  Û `'  

     IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B" BENCH, MUMBAI

 [^ ..  Û   ,  Û]   ãá,    ¢

             BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND

              SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

               ./I.T.A. No. 3259/Mum/2012
           ( [ [ / Assessment Year : 2008-09
The Dy.CIT 17(2),      / Shri Mudhit Madanlal
Mumbai                        Gupta,
                         Vs.
                              Prop. M/s. Emgee
                              Developers & Consultants,
                              17/17H, Bahubali Bldg.,
                              Cawasji Patel "Street, Fort,
                              Mumbai-400 001
    . /   . / PAN/GIR No. : AACPG 3554F
    ( /Appellant)       ..        (× / Respondent)
        / Appellant by:                    Shri Rudolph N. D'Souza
      ×   /Respondent by:                     Shri Hariom Tulsyan


               / Date of Hearing                            :3.11.2014
               /Date of Pronouncement :3.11.2014

                               / O R D E R

PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM:


        This appeal by the Revenue is preferred against the order of the Ld.
CIT(A)-34, Mumbai dt.29.2.2012 pertaining to A.Y.2008-09.

2.      The Revenue has raised 4 substantive grounds of appeal. The sum
and substance of the grievance of the Revenue is that the Ld. CIT(A)
                                     2                   ITA No. 3259/M/2012


erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 81,30,522/- made by the AO
u/s.80IB(10) of the Act. It is the claim of the Revenue that facts of
assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 are distinguishable from
the facts of the year under consideration.

3.    During the course of the scrutiny assessment proceedings, the
Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has claimed deduction u/s.
80IB(10) of the Act in respect of A, B & C Wings. The AO was of the
firm belief that the assessee has not complied with the mandatory
condition laid down u/s. 80IB(10)(a) & u/s. 80IB(10)(b) of the Act. The
claim was denied by the AO by making the following observation:


             "The similar disallowance regarding deduction u/s. 80IB
             was made in the A.Y. 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 by the
             then A.Os for the reasons mentioned in the assessment order
             for those years and this has been confirmed by Ld. CIT(A)
             for all the three years. The assessee is in appeal before
             Hon'ble ITAT `B' Bench for A.Y. 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-
             08 under ITA Nos. 3220/M/10, 3445/M/10 & 3444/M/10
             respectively."




4.    Aggrieved by this the assessee carried the matter before the Ld.
CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) had the benefit of the order of the Tribunal for
A.Yrs 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 in ITA Nos. 3220, 3445 &
3444/M/2010.     Respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble
Mumbai Tribunal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowances made by the
AO.

5.    Aggrieved by this, Revenue is before us. At the outset, the Ld.
Counsel for the assessee stated that the Tribunal has decided the issue in
hand in favour of the assessee vide its order dt. 23.12.2010 in ITA Nos.
3220, 3445 & 3444/M/2010.
                                       3                    ITA No. 3259/M/2012



6.       The Ld. Departmental Representative stated that the facts of the
year under consideration are distinguishable from the facts of the earlier
years.

7.       We have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below and
the decision of the Tribunal (supra) in the earlier years. The claim relates
to the construction and sale of wings A,B & C, the only distinguishing
facts which came to our notice during the course of the hearing relates to
Wing `D. Apparently, Wing D is not eligible for deduction u/s. 80IB(10)
of the Act. From the records, it is not clear whether any profit from
Wing D is included in the total claim of the assessee u/s. 80IB(10) of the
Act. Therefore, for this limited purpose of verification, we restore the
issue to the file of the AO. The AO is directed to verify whether any
profit from Wing D is included in the total profit which has been claimed
as deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act, and if satisfied that no profit of
Wing `D' is included, then allow the claim of deduction of the assessee
following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench for earlier assessment
years as mentioned elsewhere.




8.       In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is treated as allowed
for statistical purpose.

         Order pronounced in the open court on 03.11.2014.

                Sd/-                              Sd/-
         (I.P. BANSAL )                     (N.K. BILLAIYA)
Û  / JUDICIAL MEMBER                     / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
 Mumbai;  Dated : 3 November, 2014rd


.../ RJ , Sr. PS
                           4       ITA No. 3259/M/2012


    /Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1.  / The Appellant
2.   × / The Respondent.
3.    () / The CIT(A)-
4.     / CIT
5.    ,   , 
     / DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6.   [  / Guard file.
                                / BY ORDER,
          ×  //True Copy//
                       / 
                    (Dy./Asstt. Registrar)
                    ,  / ITAT, Mumbai

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Website Ranking Website Ranking Company Website Positioning Alexa Ranking Website Promotion Website top 10 ranking website top 10 promotion search engine result promotion Strategic Internet Marketing Website Optimization Website Ranking Factors

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions