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: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: TDS :: cpt :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: VAT Audit :: empanelment :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: form 3cd :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: VAT RATES :: due date for vat payment
 
 
From the Courts »
 Micro Spacematrix Solution P Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)
 CIT vs. Greenfield Hotels & Estates Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court)
 IndiaBulls Financial Services Ltd vs. DCIT (Delhi High Court)
 Maharao Bhim Singh of Kota vs. CIT (Supreme Court)
 Ravneet Takhar Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax Ix And Ors.
 Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax
 Formula One World Championship Limited Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-3 And Anr.
 Commissioner Of Income Tax International Taxation-3 Delhi Vs. Formula One World Championship Ltd. And Anr.
 Reliance Communications Ltd vs. DDIT (ITAT Mumbai)
  Sushila Devi vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)
 Ashok Prapann Sharma vs. CIT (Supreme Court)a

DCIT Circle 10 (1) New Delhi Vs. M/s DLF Commercial Developers Ltd. New Delhi
April, 23rd 2014
                                        1                ITA No. 2503/Del/13



               IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                     DELHI BENCH: `B' NEW DELHI
             BEFORE SHRI G. D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT
                                  AND
                   SHRI A. D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER

                             I.T.A .No. 2503Del/2013
                           (Assessment Year: 2008-09)

     DCIT                          vs       M/s DLF Commercial Developers
     Circle 10 (1)                          Ltd.
     New Delhi                              New Delhi
                                            (RESPONDENT)
     (APPELLANT)


                     Appellant by  Dr. Sudha Kumari, CIT DR
                     Respondent by Sh. R. S. Singhvi, CA

                                    ORDER
PER A. D. JAIN, JM

      This is Department's Appeal for A.Y 2009-10 contending that the Ld.
CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition of Rs.4003367733/- made on
account of disallowance of deduction u/s 80IAB of the I.T Act and in treating the
income from sale of assets as business income against the capital gain assessed
by the AO.
2.    The facts as per the record are that the assessee company was incorporated
on 1/1/2002. This company has been engaged in the business of developing,
operating and maintaining real estate projects, which includes development of
SEZ and all related infrastructure. The assessee company filed its return of
income showing an income of Rs.291,48,67,717/-.         Thereafter, the assessee
company filed a revised return of income declaring in income of Rs.3,50,69,770/-
                                         2                  ITA No. 2503/Del/13


after claiming deduction of Rs.400,33,67,733/- u/s 80IAB of the I.T Act. The
revised return was filed on account of demerger of non SEZ activities from the
assessee company w.e.f. 1/4/2008, as per scheme of amalgamation and approval
granted by Delhi High Court. In the assessment order passed for the year under
consideration, the Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction claimed by the
assessee u/s 80-IAB of the I. T. Act amounting to Rs. 400,33,67,733/- for
developing special economic zone at Hyderabad.
3.    The Ld. CIT(A), by virtue of the impugned order, deleted the disallowance
made by the AO.
4.    The Ld. DR has contended that the Ld. CIT(A) has erroneously deleted
disallowance/addition correctly made by the AO, wrongly treating the incomes
of the assessee from the sale of assets as business income, whereas the same has
rightly been assessed by the AO as capital gain.
5.    The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, has placed strong
reliance on the impugned order. It has been submitted that the matter stands
squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision dated 13/12/2013 of
the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for the immediately
preceding assessment year, i.e. A.Y, 2008-09, in ITA No. 2560/Del/13 ( copy
placed on record). Reliance has also been placed on the order dated 21/2/2014,
passed by the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in ITA Nos. 5469 & 5366/Del/12 (A.Y
2008-09) and ITA Nos. 5470 & 5367 /Del/12 (A.Y 2008-09), in the case of DLF
Info City Developers Chennai Ltd., a sister concern of the present assessee. The
Ld. CIT(A), while deleting the disallowance, has held, inter-alia, as follows:-
      " 7.3 I have considered the submission of the appellant, remand report,
      rejoinder to remand report and of CIT(A), Faridabad order. it is seen that
      appellant is engaged in the business of real estate and the development of
      such commercial projects is the main object of the appellant. The
      appellant had been following the Percentage of Completion Method
                                   3                 ITA No. 2503/Del/13





(POCM) method for recognizing revenue of various projects as per the
Accounting Standards issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of
India and it has been accepted by the department since inception.
It is seen that the appellant has been following mercantile system of
accounting and has been recognizing the revenue in accordance with the
Accounting Standard AS-7 & AS-19 issued by the Institute of Chartered
Accountants of India. It is now a judicially recognized preposition that in
case of contracts or business of construction, in order to ascertain the
income, one need not wait till the contract is completed. The Assessing
Officer however cannot apply any other method for recognizing the
revenue and has to accept the accounting policy followed by the appellant,
therefore, when the appellant has recognized the income following
percentage of completion method as per AS-7 issued by the Institute of
Chartered Accountants of India, the profits derived on account of
development considerations of bare shells would constitute the profits and
gains derived from business of developing Special Economic Zone within
the meaning of Section 80IAB of the Act.
The accounting treatment of warm shells by the co-developer in its books
of accounts as an asset would not make any difference as far as the
appellant is concerned. The admitted fact remains tht the appellant has
computed its income under the Percentage of Completion Method (POCM)
which is prescribed for calculating profits and gains of business of real
estate developer under the mandatory accounting standard issued by the
Institute of Chartered Accountants or India. The Assessing Officer's
observations by referring to the classification of assets shown by the co-
developer was a sale of capital asset subjected to capital gain is against
the very principle of the Act when the bare shell buildings were neither
part of capital work in progress nor fixed assets of the appellant. A
perusal of the assessment order reveals that the Assessing Officer has not
categorically held the income of the appellant under the head `Capital
Gains' as no such specific addition has been made. The Assessing Officer
has only made his observations without prejudice to his decision in
disallowing the entire claim of deduction u/s 80IAB.
It is seen that observations of the Assessing Officer are not based on
correct appreciation of facts. The appellant has shown work in progress in
the business of construction and by no stretch of imagination work in
progress can be treated as capital asset. The stock in trade is specifically
excluded from the definition of `Capital asset'. The stock in trade is
specifically excluded from the definition of `Capital Asset' u/s 2 (14) of the
Act. The development of the bare shell buildings in the SEZ and
                                            4                 ITA No. 2503/Del/13


          subsequent transfer thereof cannot be considered as giving rise to short
          term capital gain, considering the business of the appellant and accounting
          treatment adopted in the books of account irrespective of the treatment by
          the co-development in the books of accounts as fixed assets. The
          observations of the Assessing Officer on this issue are erroneous, legally
          untenable and misdirected in holding that the income can be assessed as
          capital gains. I have gone through the judicial rulings relied upon by the
          appellant in support to its claim which are squarely applicable to the facts
          of the appellant's case. Therefore, the observation of the Assessing Officer
          of assessing the income from sale of bare shell and cold shell as income
          from capital gain is erroneous and not based on correct appreciation of
          facts. Hence, the findings of the Assessing Officer are rejected.

6.        The Ld. CIT(A), it is seen, has also taken into consideration the following
facts:-
          "The appellant has contended that the Assessing Officer has exceeded his
          jurisdiction in disregarding the approvals granted to the appellant by the
          Board of Approvals constituted under the SEZ Act. In this regard, it is
          noticed that:-
          The appellant was granted approval by the Ministry of Commerce &
          Industry (SEZ Section) for setting up a sector specific SEZ for IT/ITES
          sector at Rangareddy District, Hyderabad (Andhra Pradesh). An area of
          10.617 Hectares situated in Gachibowli Village, Shirlingampali Mandal,
          Rangareddy District in state of Andhra Pradesh was notified by the
          Ministry of Commerce & Industry vide notification dated 26/4/2007.
          The authorized operations to be undertaken by the appellant were also
          approved by a separate approval by the Govt. of India, Ministry of
          Commerce & Industry (SEZ Section) vide letter dated 21/6/2007.
          The appellant entered into a MoU dated 29/11/2006 (wrongly mentioned
          as 29/11/2007 in the MOU which was rectified by corrigendum dated
          6/11/2007) with the co-developer and filed the same for approval before
          the Board of Approvals.
          An addendum thereto was also entered into amending the terms of the
          original MOU on 29/11/2006. The appointment of co-developer M/s DLF
          Assets Pvt. Ltd. was approved by the Ministry of Commerce vide their
          letter dated 1/5/2007.
          The authorized operations to be taken up by the co-developer in the said
          Hyderabad SEZ was also approved by the Ministry of Commerce &
                                  5                  ITA No. 2503/Del/13


Industry (SEZ Section) vide letter dated 18/6/2007 which included an
operation of development of office space (Warm Shell).
In order to consolidate the MOU and addendums thereto a co-developer
agreement was entered into between the appellant and DLF Assets Pvt. Ltd
on 20/3/2008 which was also filed before the Board of Approvals and the
approval was also granted to this agreement vide letter dated 1/6/2009 by
the Ministry of Commerce & Industry (SEZ Section).
The appellant has filed all these approvals and notifications which are
contained in the paper book. In support of its claim the appellant has also
filed copies of POCM chart, a certificate from the Chartered Account in
Form No. 10CCB which is placed in the paper book.
It is seen that as per the MOU dated 29/11/2006 the developer agreed to
appoint DLF Assets Pvt. Ltd as co-developer for developing, operating and
maintaining the said SEZ by granting DAPL the exclusive right to execute
a part of the authorized operations and the co-developer has agreed to
fund and execute the said authorized operations specifically allocated to it
by the developer.
In this MOU it was stated that the developer will create in favour of the co-
developer in the said property and building thereon a 49 years lease on
terms to the mutually agreed upon. The co-developer shall be entitled to
use the said property for carrying out co-developer operations. Pursuant
to the completion of building, the co-developer will be entitled to identify
customers for occupying the built up units within the project and shall
have the right to sub-lease the units in the project or part thereof. The co-
developer shall be treated as owner of the additions, modifications
equipments etc. which are installed by the co-developer in building or
project.
This MOU was approved by the Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Deptt
of Commerce (SEZ Section) vide letter dated 1/5/2007 and the MOU was
made part of the approval letter as mentioned in para-2 of the said letter.
It is evident from the above that there was a clear approval of both the
appellant and the co-developer fro development, operation and
maintenance of aforesaid SEZ wherein the initial arrangement by the
appellant was to carry out part development and lese out the land and
building thereon to co-developer for a lease period of 49 years. However,
it has been stated that, in the addendum to the MOU certain amendments
were made to the MOU which inter alia include clause 2.3 wherein the
phrase `Developer will create, in favour of the co-developer in the said
property and the buildings there upon, a 49 years lease.......' was replaced
by lease.......' and the bare shell buildings constructed by the appellant
                                        6                 ITA No. 2503/Del/13


      were proposed to be handed over to the co-developer for a development
      charge which was fixed at Rs.4845/- per Sq. Ft.
      In the 32nd meeting of the Board of Approvals held on 23/2/2009 four
      proposals of DLF Group were discussed.             In this meeting, the
      representative of department of revenue pointed out that these proposals
      have already been approved and the amendments in the earlier approvals
      are now being filed after a gap of considerable time. The fresh approval
      may be sought if any material changes are made in the agreements.
      Accordingly, the Board decided to defer the proposals and decided that
      these cases can be examined on file.
      Subsequently, the appellant filed a definitive co-developer agreement
      executed with the co-developer dated 20/3/2008 wherein the development
      consideration was finally revised to a minimum of Rs.5250/- per Sq.Ft. of
      the built up space within the SEZ Buildings vide clause 2.6 of the
      agreement."

6.1   The Ld. CIT(A), it is seen, has further taken into consideration the
following facts:-
      " Consequent upon the decision taken in the 32nd meeting of the Board of
      Approvals on 23/2/2009 to examine the matter on file, the note sheet was
      prepared, which the appellant has filed and accepted as additional
      evidence collected by the appellant under the Right to Information Act. It
      is seen from the additional evidences filed by the appellant that the matter
      was referred to director (ITA-1) CBDT pursuant to objections raised by
      the representative of the Department of Revenue (DOR) in the 32nd meeting
      after the Board of Approvals clarifying the position as under:-
      1.     The developer is not selling the land to the co-developer but is only
             leasing it out.
      2.     Normally after the land is released, the co-developer will construct
             the building. In this case the developer has already constructed
             the shell which is being transferred to the co-developer for a
             consideration. The co-developer will finish the shells, leased it out
             to the units and collect rentals. In other cases also, the same
             activity is carried, the only difference in this case is the ready
             availability of the shells.
      3.     The transfer and hand over deed is in respect of the shells which
             the co-developer cannot proceed further.
                                   7                 ITA No. 2503/Del/13


4.     At no stage the developer sells the land to the co-developer and at
       the end of the lease period the land reverts to the developer. The
       developer continues to be responsible for the developer operations.
5.     The co-developer will have all the rights and exclusive possession
       of the SEZ buildings (which are being developed by him) such are
       necessary to execute the co-developer operations.
In principle the Department of Commerce approved the revised co-
developer agreements.
The matter was referred to the Central Board of Direct Taxes for their
comments vide letter dated 8/4/2009. The director (ITA-1, CBDT vide
letter dated 26/5/2009 communicated to the department of commerce vide
paras 3 & 4 as under:-
       "3. An examination of the agreements made available shows the
       developers propose to lease land to the co-developers for a period of
       30 years or more in exchange for payment of substantial amount of
       consideration being paid on lump sum basis. The owner proposes to
       transfer cold shell of the building on handover basis which would be
       further developed and maintained it by the co-developer.
 4.    The issue regarding transfer of land by developers on an
       indefinite/long lease which virtually amounts to a sale has been
       brought to the notice of DOC on earlier occasions. After protracted
       discussion on the issue and also taking into account the advice of
       Ministry of Law, it was agreed to approve such proposals subject to
       the inclusion of disclaimer in the letter of approval that the approval
       will have no bearing on tax treatment of income arising out of such
       transaction which will be decided as per the relevant provisions of
       the Income Tax Act, 1961."
After taking into account the above correspondences the approval letter
was issued to DLF Assets Pvt. Ltd. on 1/6/2009 conveying the approval,
relevant clauses of which read as under:-
"(2) Your revised agreement dated 20/3/2008 entered into with the
       developer of the aforesaid sector specific special economic zone of
       DLF Commercial Developer Limited for providing common
       facilities shall form part of this approval.
(3) (xvii)     Approval given by Board of Approvals for co-developer for
       particular terms and conditions of lease agreement will not have any
       bearing on the treatment of the income by way of lease rentals/down
       payment/premium etc. for the purposes of assessment under the
       prevalent Income Tax Act and Rules. The Assessing Officer will
                                          8                   ITA No. 2503/Del/13


             have the right to examine the taxability of these amounts under the
             Income Tax Act."

7.    The Ld. CIT(A) also observed that as per the qua letters dated 18/1/2011 &
20/1/2011 issued by the Ministry of Commerce, Deptt of SEZ, as filed by the
assessee, the assessee and the co-developer had performed the authorized
operations duly approved by the Board of Approvals. It was observed that these
letters had been field before the AO in the assessment proceedings; that the letter
dated 20/1/2011 made it clear that the assessee could transfer bare shell and cold
shell buildingsto the co-developer by executing transfer and handing over deed
and in consideration thereof, the co-developer would make payment of such
amount as development consideration in favour of the developer, as agreed to
between the parties; and that in view of such clarification, the AO's observation
that the transfer of bare shell buildings by the assessee to the co-developer was
not an authorized operation, was not based on the correct appreciation of the
documents filed by the assessee; and that from the said clarifications issued by
the Ministry of Commerce, as also the correspondence between the Ministry of
Commerce and the CBDT, there remained no doubt that the disclaimer referred
by the AO in the approval letter dated 1/6/2009 was applicable only to the
transaction of transfer of land in the guise of long term lease by receiving lease
rentals/down payments/premium commensurate with the sale value of the land,
as was evident from para 4 of letter dated 26/5/2009 sent by the Director (ITA -1)
CBDT to the Deptt of Commerce and Industries. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that
therefore, the disclaimer vide point 3 (XVII) of the co-developer approval letter,
on which the AO had relied, was not applicable to the transfer of bare shells and
cold shells for a consideration; that the transfer of bare shells and cold shells for a
consideration had been approved as authorized operations as per the approval
issued by the B.O.A; that the Ministry of Commerce had, in their clarification
                                        9                 ITA No. 2503/Del/13





dated 18/1/2011 explicitly clarified that all leases of land were subject to the
general condition contained in Para 3 (XVII) of letter dated 1/6/2009 and this
general condition was applicable to the terms and conditions of the land lease
agreement only.
8.    It was on the basis of the above that the Ld. CIT(A) observed as under:-
      " Keeping in view, the discussions above it is clear that the appellant has
      been duly approved by the Board of Approvals as a developer, the land in
      Village Gachibowli Shirilingampalli Mandal, Rangareddy District in the
      state of Andhra Pradesh was notified. The contents of letter dated
      1/6/2009 applies only to transfer of land or one time lease rental/one time
      down payment/premium etc. received against eh land as clarified by the
      Ministry of Commerce in the clarification dated 18/1/2011 and
      correspondence made between the Ministry of Commerce and Department
      of Revenue as filed by the appellant during the course of appellate
      proceedings as additional evidence.
      In view of the facts discussed above, I agree with the submission of the
      appellant that the disclaimer condition mentioned in the co-developer
      approval letter dated 1/6/2009 is primarily put in by the Board of
      approvals in the approvals to put a curb on the wrong practices of leasing
      the land for long periods and receiving onetime payment in the form of
      lease rental/down payments/premiums etc. which tantamount to sale of
      land in the guise of long term lease. The appellant has obtained requisite
      approval from the Board of Approvals by disclosing all facts. The entire
      controversy as to whether the transfer of bare shell buildings to the co-
      developer was an authorized operation has been set at rest by the
      correspondents made between the Ministry of Commerce and Department
      of Revenue and also by clarification letters issued dated 18/1/2011 &
      20/1/2011 by Ministry of Commerce. The appellant has made an
      agreement with the co-developer giving the land on lease for 49 years and
      yearly lease rentals are being received by the appellant. There is no
      lumsum payment in the form of lease rentals/down payments/premiums etc.
      received by the appellant against the land during the year. I as satisfied
      that all the conditions as required to be satisfied under the SEZ Act/Rules
      are fulfilled and the appellant is an approved developer for all intent and
      purpose of Section 8oIAB of the Act. Consequent upon approval granted
      by the Board of Approvals for the transfer of bare shells to the co-
      developer for a consideration is an authorized operation and income
                                        10                  ITA No. 2503/Del/13


      derived from such transfer of cold shell or bare shells is eligible for
      deduction u/s 80IAB of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
      Regarding the observation of the Assessing Officer that the land and
      building are one composite and cannot be separated, the appellant has
      stated that the Indian Law recognizes separate ownership of the land and
      building and this position has been recognized by various High Courts
      including the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein it has been held that the
      maxim, what is annexed to the soil goes with the soil has not been accepted
      as an absolute rule of law of this country."
9.    Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) held and, in our considered opinion, rightly
so that the assessee had not violated any of the conditions laid down in the SEZ
Rules before us, the Department has not been able to refute these well reasoned
observations and findings of fact recorded by the Ld. CIT(A).
10.   Too, as correctly contended on behalf of the assessee, the matter is covered
in favour of the assessee by the two Tribunal decisions, one in the case of the
assessee itself, for the immediately preceding assessment year and the other in
the case of DLF Info City Developers (Chennai Ltd.) a sister concern of the
assessee. In the assessee's own case for A. Y 2008-09, the Tribunal has, inter-
alia, observed as follows:-
      " 9.4. It is clearly emerges that by the end of the 263 hearing the CIT
      brushed aside the consideration of issue by holding that he has no
      sufficient time to go into the material, therefore, the assessment is set aside
      to the assessing Officer who will carry out detailed inquiry. In our
      considered view, CIT failed to discharge his statutory duty and instead of
      taking a clear call and demonstrating errors made by Assessing Officer
      and prejudice caused to the revenue, the buck has been passed on to
      assessing officer by setting aside assessment order, which is against the
      letter and spirit of provisions of Section 263. Where the authority fails to
      carry out its statutory obligation, the order cannot be held as tenable and
      is liable to be quashed.
      9.5 Apropos the issue of sale of bare shell buildings being authorized
      activity, it is amply clear that the SEZ Act authorized activities include
      construction of bare shell/cold shell/warm shell buildings and transfer
      thereof. BOA has approved it and clarified the same. There is enough
      material on the record to hold that the transfer of bare shell buildings to
                                        11                 ITA No. 2503/Del/13


      co-developers constitute authorized activity. Thus, we see no error on any
      count as held by CIT in the order of assessing officer allowing deduction
      u/s 80-IAB."
11.   In the case of the sister concern of the assessee, DLF Info City Developers,
the Tribunal has held, inter-alia,
      Page 40 to 41.
      "36. Thus, as discussed above, the admitted and undisputed fact remain
      that the assessee has been duly approved by the BOA as a developer, the
      land owned by the assessee at Chennai was notified by the Govt. of India
      for establishment of SEZ, the authorized operations to be under taken in
      the said SSEZ were approved by BOA, the co-developer agreement dated
      20/3/2008 executed with the co-developer contemplating transfer of "bare
      shells" to the co-developer has been duly approved by the BOP; the DAPL
      has been approved as a co-dev eloper, the transfer of bare shell to the co-
      developer has been approved as an authorized operation b y the BOP and
      the disclaimer contained in Clauses 3(XVII) of the approval letter dated
      1/6/2009 applies only to the lease of land as clarified by the approval letter
      dated 1/6/2009 applies only to the lease of land as clarified by the Ministry
      of Commerce in the clarification dated 18/1/2011 and not to the transfer
      of bare shells. Noting these material facts we are of the view that the Ld.
      CIT(A) has rightly agreed with the plea of the assessee that the tax
      disclaimer condition mentioned in t he co-developer approval is primarily
      to be in by the BOA in the approvals granted to put a curb on the wrong
      practice of leasing the land for long periods and receiving one time
      payment in the form of lease rentals/down payments/premium etc which
      tantamount to sale of land in the guise of long term lease. The assessee
      has obtained requisite approvals from the BOA in most transparent
      manner by disclosing not only development consideration but also the
      basis for determining the same. The entire controversy as to whether
      transfer of bare shell buildings to the co-developer was an authorized
      operation has been set at rest by further clarifications dated 18/1/2011 and
      201/2011 issued by the Ministry of Commerce. The BOA, being the
      statutory process of law after duly considering and examining all the facts
      and documents on record in accordance with relevant provisions of SEZ
      Act and SEZ Rules. Thus, the consequential benefits that is available to a
      developer under the Income Tax Act cannot be denied. The AO does not
      have any jurisdiction to question the validity or the legality of authorized
      operations which have been approved by the BOA/Central Government
                                       12                 ITA No. 2503/Del/13


      Section 27 of SEZ Act provides for modification of Income Tax Act to the
      extent of second schedule of SEZ Act.
Page 42.
      " 37. The second schedule of SEZ Act contends bare text of certain
      provision including Section 80IAB to be incorporated in the Income Tax
      Act present to the Section 80IAB (having the same in as mentioned in SEZ
      Act) has been broadly incorporated into the Income Tax Act. Section 51 of
      SEZ Act having an over riding effect over any other law, reads as under:-
      "51.(1)       The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding
      anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time
      being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other
      than this Act."
      38. Thus, it is clear from the above that the provisions of SEZ Act shall
      have over riding effect even if anything inconsistent is contained in the
      Income Tax Act. The SEZ Act has been enacted containing the specific
      legislation to be brought in other statutes. When the terms like SEZ,
      authorized operations, developers etc have been specifically defined under
      the SEZ Act, it is not open to any authority to relook at the meaning of
      terms already defined under the SEZ Act."
Page 45.
      "39. We thus find that assessee is a developer under the SEZ Act and is in
      the business of developing a SEZ, the SEZ has been notified on the first day
      of April 2005 under the Special Economic Zone Act 2005; and the profits
      have been derived from the business of development, operation and
      maintenance of SEZ. We thus fully agree with the finding of the Ld.
      CIT(A) that all the conditions as required to the satisfied under the SEZ
      Act/ Rules are fulfilled and the assessee is approved developer for all the
      intent and purposes of Section 80IAB of the I.T. Act. Consequent upon
      approval granted by the BOA for transfer of bare shell to the co-developer,
      the profits arising to the assessee from such an authorized transaction are
      eligible for deduction u/s 80IAB of the Act."
Page 45
      "40. Thus, we find that the issues discussed and view suppressed thereon
      hereinabove in the preceding paragraphs will cover the issue raised in
      additional ground of the appeal preferred by the Revenue and the issues
      raised in Ground Nos. 6,7,8,9,10 & 14 of the Revenue's appeal. In result
      all these grounds of the appeal of the revenue are rejected.
      41.Consequently, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed and that of
      the Revenue is dismissed."
                                           13                 ITA No. 2503/Del/13


12.      The assessee's case, it is seen, also finds support from the above Tribunal
decision in the case of its sister concern, Delhi Info City Developers (Chennai
Ltd) for A. Y 2007-08.
13.      In "Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Tata Communication Services Ltd,
in ITA No. 531/2011, vide order dated 8/82011 (copy placed on record), the
Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi has held that deduction u/s 80IA of
the Act cannot be denied after having been granted in the first year of claim, as
the restraint of Section 80 IA (3) cannot be considered for every year of claim of
deduction, but can be considered only in the year of formation of the business.
14.      No decision contrary to the above case laws has been put forwarded before
us by the Department.
15.      In the above discussed facts and circumstances, we do not find any error in
the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance of deduction u/s 80 IB
of the Act, as claimed by the assessee.          The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is,
accordingly, upheld and the grievance of the Department stands rejected.
16.      In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is dismissed.


The order is pronounced in the open court on 17th of April 2014.


          Sd/-                                                         Sd/-
(G. D. AGRAWAL)                                                (A.D. JAIN)
VICE PRESIDENT                                              JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated:        17/04/2014
*R. Naheed*

Copy forwarded to:
1.                              Appellant
2.                              Respondent
3.                              CIT
              14       ITA No. 2503/Del/13


4.   CIT(Appeals)
5.   DR: ITAT

                    ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
                          ITAT NEW DELHI

 
 
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