DCIT, CC-1, GURUGRAM, GURUGRAM V. OMAXE LTD., GURUGRAM

ITA 3631/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves multiple appeals by Omaxe Limited and the Income Tax Department concerning the disallowance of deductions under section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act for various housing projects and issues related to transfer pricing adjustments for interest free loans to a subsidiary. The Tribunal examined the consistency of its earlier decisions with the current appeals, noting that similar issues had been addressed in previous years with the same outcome. The Tribunal found no new grounds or evidence to deviate from established precedents, leading to the dismissal of all appeals.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 834027 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 30-05-2025
• Other Referred Cases: CIT vs Arun Excello Foundations Pvt Ltd, Laukik Developers vs DCIT, Hinduja Global Solutions Ltd vs ACIT, Cotton Natural India Private Limited vs ACIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S.K. JADHAV
• Assessee Lawyers: AKSHAT JAIN
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; International transaction; Question of law; Wholly owned subsidiary
• Section: 234B; 115JB; 80IB; 260A

Judgement Text

"1ITA Nos. 3630, 3631, 3564 &3565/Del/2025 Omaxe Limited IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘H’ NEW DELHI) BEFORE YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3564/DEL/2025(A.Y. 2012-13) M/s Omaxe Limited 7th Floor, LSC, Omaxe House, Kalkaji, New Delhi PAN: AAACO0171H Vs Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, (OSD), Central Circle-29, New Delhi Appellant Respondent ITA No. 3565/DEL/2025(A.Y. 2013-14) M/s Omaxe Limited 7th Floor, LSC, Omaxe House, Kalkaji, New Delhi PAN: AAACO0171H Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-29, New Delhi Appellant Respondent ITA No. 3630/DEL/2025 (A.Y. 2012-13) ITA No. 3631/DEL/2025(A.Y. 2013-14) DCIT Central Circle-1 Gurgaon Vs M/s Omaxe Limited 7th Floor, HSIIDC, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurugram, HaryanaPAN: AAACO0171H Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. Akshat Jain, CA Revenue by Sh. S. K. Jadhav, CIT DR Date of Hearing 28/01/2026 Date of Pronouncement 04/02/2026 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: The captioned appeals in ITA Nos. 3564/Del/2025 and 3565/Del/2025 are filed by the Assessees and ITA Nos. 3630/DEL/2025 and ITA No. 3631/DEL/2025 are filed by the Revenue challenging the Orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Delhi 44 order Printed from counselvise.com 2ITA Nos. 3630, 3631, 3564 &3565/Del/2025 Omaxe Limited dated 24/03/2025 pertaining to A.Y 2012-13 and order dated 24/03/2025 for A.Y 2013-14respectively. Assessee’s Appeals 2. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee fairly submitted that the Ground No. 1 & 2 in Assessee’s Appealsin ITA No. 3564/Del/2025 and 3565/Del/2025 are regarding disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80IB(10) of the Act and the said issue is squarely covered by the order of the Tribunal for Assessment Year 2008-09 in Assessee’s own case in ITA No. 3887/Del/2013, wherein the projects under consideration have been examined and decided the issue against the Assessee. 3. Per contra, the Ld. Department's Representative relying on the orders of the Lower Authorities, sought for dismissalofthe Grounds No. 1 & 2 of the Assessee’s Appeals. 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. An identical issue of disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80IB (10) of the Act has been considered by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Assessee’s own case for A.Y 2008-09in respect of the projects under consideration in following manners: “13. Assessee's Appeal. The learned CIT(A) upheld the order of the Assessing Officer to the extent of deduction claimed by the appellant on unbuilt housing sites Le. the plots consisted in the housing projects mainly on the ground that if there is no Printed from counselvise.com 3ITA Nos. 3630, 3631, 3564 &3565/Del/2025 Omaxe Limited construction on residential plots sold as such, the conditions specified in clause (a) and (c) w.r.t commencement of construction and ceiling of built up area cannot be satisfied. The assessee filed the appeal against the order of CIT(A) to the extent, as per Grounds of Appeal 13.1 The submissions of the Learned AR in support of the above grounds (reproduced in Para No. 7) of the appeal preferred by the assessee are as under: i) Deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act is allowed to an assessee in respect of profit derived from a \"housing project\" approved by the local authority. In the present case, all the projects undertaken by the appellant, involving inter alia, development of plots, construction of built up units were approved as integrated and composite housing projects. It can be appreciated that there is no definition of 'housing project' under section 80IB but housing project is defined in section 80HHBA, which finds its place in the same chapter ie. chapter VIA- 'Deductions in respect of certain incomes\". Relevant extract is as under: 80HHBA. Deduction in respect of profits and gains from housing projects in certain cases... Explanation: (a) \"housing project\" means a project for- (4) the construction of any building, road, bridge or other structure in any part of India: (i) the execution of such other work (of whatever nature) as may be prescribed; The assessee did undertake construction of roads, other structures like STP. water tanks, bridges etc. in its housing projects. It also undertook construction of residential houses/flats in the housing projects, albeit, in some cases, profits from the same were booked in succeeding years. Printed from counselvise.com 4ITA Nos. 3630, 3631, 3564 &3565/Del/2025 Omaxe Limited Perhaps the law makers, in all their wisdom, did not see the need of defining the housing project again in section 80IB as reference could very well be drawn from section 80HHBA, as both the sections fall in the same chapter and are incentive provisions for development of housing projects. In fact this view has been approved by Hon'ble Madras High Court in case of CIT vsArunExcello Foundations Pvt Ltd (259 CTR 362) (Madras) in ITA No. 1348 and 1349 of 2007. Relevant extracts are as under: There is no definition of housing project' under Section 80IB(10) of the Act. This, however, does not pose any difficulty. For reading Section 80HНВА and Section 801A, it is clear that Section 801B is concerned about housing project namely, construction of any building other than what is contemplated as an infrastructure facility under Section 801A. Thus when under the very same Chapter dealing with deduction, the expression \"housing project\" has already been defined in a related provision, we do not find, the absence of the same under Section 80IB should pose a problem in understanding the meaning of the said expression. In the absence of definition of the expression 'housing project' anywhere else in the Act and the said expression being defined in a related deduction provision under the same Chapter VIA, we feel, it would be more appropriate to go by the definition of the expression 'housing project', as available under Section 80HHBA for the purpose of understanding the said expression of housing project' under Section 80-1B of the Act. 31. As seen already, \"housing project' defined under Section 80HHBA refers not only building, but also road, bridge or other structure in any part of India.. as defined in the Explanation, we hold that the housing project contemplated under Section 80-IB(10) refers construction of \"any building\" and widest possible meaning has to be given to the word \"building\" and cannot be restricted to and as referable to a housing project covering residential units only.\" It is worthwhile to mention here that a representation had been made by the Maharashtra Chamber of Housing Industry to the Printed from counselvise.com 5ITA Nos. 3630, 3631, 3564 &3565/Del/2025 Omaxe Limited Hon'ble Finance Minister by its memorandum dt. 1st Jan., 2001 in which, inter alia amongst other matters, it was also requested that a \"suitable clarification be made to define the term 'housing project. Consequently, CBDT. Department of Revenue, addressed a reply under F. No. 205/3/2001/IT A-II dt. 4th May, 2001, giving the following clarification: \"With regard to your query regarding the definition of housing project, it is clarified that any project which has been approved by a local authority as a housing project should be considered adequate for the purpose of Sections 10(23G) and 80-IB(10).\" Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT in case of Laukik Developers vs DCIT 105 ITD 657 has also placed reliance on the aforesaid definition and observed as under: \"The clarification of CBDT vide letter dt. 04.05.01 to Maharastra Chamber of Housing Industry clearly states that any project, which is approved by local authority as a \"housing project\", should be considered adequate for the purpose of Section-10(23G) and 801B(10) of the Act. This clarification by the CBDT is of no help to the case of the assessee for the reason that the Building Project of the assessee was not approved by the local authority namely KDMC as a \"Housing Project and was in fact approved as a \"residential as well as commercial project\" by them.\" Though the aforesaid case was decided against the assesse as his project was approved not as a housing project but as a 'residential and commercial project', but Hon'ble ITAT has reached on this conclusion by placing reliance on the clarification given by CBDT. The learned AR submitted that the aforesaid decisions support the case of the Appellant inasmuch the project under consideration was, as discussed supra, undisputedly approved as residential project by the local authority. Thus, applying the ratio laid down in the cases discussed above, once the project was approved as housing project by the local authority, the assessee was eligible for deduction in respect of profit derived from such project under section 80IB(10) of the Act. Printed from counselvise.com 6ITA Nos. 3630, 3631, 3564 &3565/Del/2025 Omaxe Limited Further, the expression \"housing project\", in the absence of any specific definition in section 80IB(10) ought to be give a wider/ purposive meaning/ interpretation, similar to the one given in Explanation to section 80HHBA of the Act. Construction/ development of housing sites, constitutes development of the housing project, which is the heart and soul of allowance of deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act. Further, in the absence of any specific bar in section 80IB(10) of the Act from claiming deduction in respect of profit derived from development and sale of housing sites/plots, there was no justifiable reason for the lower authorities to reject the claim of the Appellant, despite the fact that the project had, undisputedly been approved as residential/ housing project. (iv) The expression \"housing project\" in section 801B(10) of the Act does not simply mean constructing built up residential dwelling units. On the other hand. developing and constructing a housing project involves various activities for providing housing facility, which primarily involves creation of infrastructure for housing, as has, undisputedly, been done by the assessee. (v) Ld. CIT(A) has totally misconstrued the expression \"development and construction of housing project in section 801B(10) of the Act in an extremely narrow sense to \"development and construction of residential unit\" which, is neither legally unsustainable nor does the same accord with the legislative intent. He failed to appreciate that clause (a) of section 80IB(10) provides for commencement of construction of the housing project' and not of the \"residential unit'. He further failed to appreciate that that clause (c) of section 80IB(10) of the Act only provides that the maximum built up area of the residential unit should not exceed the specified limit The said clause nowhere mandates construction of residential units as part of the eligible housing project, as a condition precedent to claim deduction; on the contrary, the aforesaid condition only provides maximum built-up area of 1,000/ 1,500 sq. ft.; there is, however, no condition/ stipulation regarding the minimum built up area. (vi) It was admitted by the Learned AR that both development and construction of the housing project are preconditions for claiming deduction under section 801B(10). However Ld. CIT(A) has interpreted this provision in a very narrow manner. What is specified Printed from counselvise.com 7ITA Nos. 3630, 3631, 3564 &3565/Del/2025 Omaxe Limited is development and construction of housing project and not residential units. Construction of the housing project includes construction of roads, boundary walls, overhead tanks, STP, etc. The appellant undertook development and construction of the housing project as under: Construction of sector road, service road and internal circulation road Provision of sewerage system, drainage, STP Electrification of the residential township and provision of street lights. Provision of water supply system Provision of parks and plantation of trees Provision of basic amenities like community centre, schools, dispensary, crèches, playground etc. Provision for units reserved for economically weaker section Providing developed and demarcated housing sites in the residential township as per the approved lay out plan. (vii) The Learned AR submitted that various activities are involved in the development and construction of a housing project, of which construction of residential units is a very small part as compared to other activities, which may be done by the individual buyer himself. It would, in this regard, be pertinent to briefly describe the procedure for developing a housing project, as under: Town and Country Planning Department declares controlled areas and prepares the development plan for that area by identifying different zones such as residential, commercial and institutional, etc; Colonizer acquires land from the owners; Colonizer applies for licenses and approval of layout plan; Printed from counselvise.com 8ITA Nos. 3630, 3631, 3564 &3565/Del/2025 Omaxe Limited DTCP grants license, subject to certain conditions and approves layout plan as per norms prescribed in Development rules and regulations, Once the project is approved, development and construction work is undertaken by the colonizer as under. Land cleaning and leveling; Demarcation of different constituents of the project such as roads, parks, residential, commercial, community, EWS, STP, etc.; Provision of space for educational, medical, recreational and community sites; Laying of water supply lines, drainage pipelines, electrical wiring, etc. Construction and metalling of roads, paving of footpaths; Construction of water tank, STP, electric sub-stations; Development of parks and green area, turfing and plantation of trees. Installation of street lights, Demarcation, identification and numbering of individual housing sites, Once the aforesaid activities are carried out, the raw land gets converted into a developed housing project with the necessary infrastructural facilities, contended the Learned AR It is thereafter, up to the developer to either undertake to construct the residential units also thereon or sell the developed housing sites/ plots as it is for construction by the buyer, according to his individual requirement/ needs and the financial capacity. The critical part of the development/ construction of a residential colony, however, are creation of the basic infrastructure facilities, so as to make any plot of land fit for housing a residential colony. (viii) The intention of the Legislature was to give fillip to the housing development Reference, in this regard, may also be made to National Urban Housing and Habitat Policy-2005 issued by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation, Government of India. Deduction under section 80IB(10) has been provided in order Printed from counselvise.com 9ITA Nos. 3630, 3631, 3564 &3565/Del/2025 Omaxe Limited to promote the housing policy of the Government, which not only aims at construction of the dwelling units but providing well planned housing schemes with adequate infrastructure facilities as under: (i) Creation of adequate housing stock both on rental and ownership basis. (ii) Facilitating accelerated supply of serviced land and housing with particular focus to EWS and LIG categories and taking into account the need for development of supporting infrastructure and basic services to all categories. (iii) Facilitate Upgradation of infrastructure of towns and cities and to make these comparable to the needs of the times. (iv) Ensuring that all dwelling units have easy accessibility to basic sanitation facilities and drinking water. Development of the housing project consisting of residential plots, as done by the appellant, it is respectfully submitted, also achieves the aforesaid objective inasmuch as the same results in development of housing sites leading to development of states and towns, (X1) Lower Authorities failed to appreciate that provision in a taxing Statute granting incentive for promoting growth and development should be construed liberally and any restriction on it too has to be so construed so as to advance the objective of the provision and not to frustrate it [refer Bajaj Tempo Limited v. CIT 196 ITR 188 (SC), P.R. Prabhakar V. CIT: 284 ITR 548 (SC)]. 13.2 Without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, the Learned AR submitted that one of the assessee's subsidiary companies, M/s NavratanTechbuild (P) Ltd had also claimed deduction in respect of its project u/s 80IB(10) consisting of mainly housing sites. Deduction in that case was also disallowed by the Assessing Officer. Appeal was preferred by the assessee against the order. The learned CIT(A), vide order dated 01.08.2012, dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellant and held that deduction was not admissible qua profits derived from sale of developed plots. The learned CIT(A), despite observing that the Director of Town and Country Planning (in short \"DTCP\") had accorded approval for Printed from counselvise.com 10 ITA Nos. 3630, 3631, 3564 &3565/Del/2025 Omaxe Limited development of \"residential colony\", held that deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act was admissible only for profit derived from development of those residential colonies where houses are also built by the developer. 13.3 On further appeal, the Tribunal vide order dated 30.07.2013 affirmed the order passed by the learned CIT(A). It is of utmost importance to note that the Tribunal, in para 8 agreed that the approval had been granted for development of housing project. Still, however, the Tribunal held that deduction was not admissible in respect of profit on sale of developed plots as construction of residential units thereon is must for claim of deduction. 13.4 Against the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, the assessee had filed appeal under section 260A of the Act before the Hon'ble High Coun of Madhya Pradesh. The Hon'ble High Court, however, vide order dated 27.01.2014 dismissed the appeal preferred by the assessee in limine, without even admitting and considering/ adjudicating the substantial questions of law raised by the assessee and arising in the appeal. The Hon'ble High Court held that the grant of permission with respect to the aforesaid project which would have made the assessee eligible for exemption, requires not only development of the residential plots, but also construction of the plots, which was admittedly not done. Accordingly, in the opinion of the Hon'ble High Court construction of residential plots or construction of some plots in later years would not qualify the assessee for exemption. The Hon'ble Court further observed that the legal issues were clearly understood by the Tribunal and it is not a case where any interpretation of law was required by the High Court. Accordingly, the Hon'ble High Court proceeded to dismiss the appeal filed by the Appellant holding that no substantial question of law was involved. 13.5 The Learned AR fairly inferred that review petition filed by the Appellant was also dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 14.03.2014. 14. The learned CIT(DR) on the other hand placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below on the above issues. 15. Considering the above submission, we fully concur with the orders of the authorities below that deduction under sec. 80IB(10) of the Act in respect of profits derived from the housing project Printed from counselvise.com 11 ITA Nos. 3630, 3631, 3564 &3565/Del/2025 Omaxe Limited consisting of unbuilt housing sites cannot be allowed. We also do not find reason to agree with the contention of the Learned AR that activity of mere developing housing site along with construction of all infra-structural facility and amenities with unbuilt residential unit is development and construction of housing project and profit assigning out of its sale is eligible for the deduction under sec. 18IB(10) of the Act. The relevant provision of sec. 80IB(10) conditions (a) and (c) thereto are being reproduced hereunder: \"Section 80IB(10): 10. The amount of deduction in the case of an undertaking developing and building housing projects approved before the 31\" day of March, 2008 by a local authority shall be hundred per cent of the profits derived in the previous year 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 Ist day of October, 1998 and completes such construction, - XX X XX X X (b) The residential unit has a maximum built-up area of one thousand square feet where such residential unit is situated within the city of Delhi or Mumbai or within twenty five kilometers from the municipal limits of these cities and one thousand and five hundred square feet at any other place.\" 15.1 In this regard, we also find support from the above cited decision of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of NavrattanTechbuild (P) Ltd. (supra). In result, ground No.1 of the appeal preferred by the assessee is rejected and ground No.2 questioning the charging of interest under sec. 234B on the revised income of the assessee is consequential in nature, hence, does not need independent adjudication. 16. The appeal of the assessee is accordingly dismissed.” Printed from counselvise.com 12 ITA Nos. 3630, 3631, 3564 &3565/Del/2025 Omaxe Limited 5. By respectfully following the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal (supra), we dismiss the Ground No. 1 & 2 in both the Appeals filed by the Assessee. 6. The Ground No. 3, 4 & 5 of Assessee’s Appeals are pertaining to interest free loan to its wholly owned subsidiary company M/s Rohtas Holding Gulf Limited. The Ld. Counsel fairly submitted that the issue involved in the said grounds are covered in Assessee’s own case for Assessment Year 2010-11 in ITA No. 79/Del/2016, wherein the Tribunal has dismissed Appeal filed by the Assessee as well as the Revenue. 7. Per contra, the Ld. Department's Representative relying on the orders of the Lower Authorities, sought for dismissal of the Grounds No. No. 3, 4 & 5 of the Assessee’s Appeals. 8. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The issue of interest free loan to Assessee’s wholly ownedsubsidiary company i.e. M/s Rohtas Holding Gulf Limited has been dealt and decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Assessee’s own case for Assessment Year 2010-11 in following manners:- “12. As regards adjustment made on account of transfer pricing, the Department has not raised any ground agitating the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Otherwise also, facts of the A/Y 2010-11 are absolutely identical to the facts of A/Y 2009-10. Thus, the Ld. AR prayed that the appeals filed by the Printed from counselvise.com 13 ITA Nos. 3630, 3631, 3564 &3565/Del/2025 Omaxe Limited Department deserved to be dismissed as the issue relating to claim of deduction u/s 80!B is fully covered by the earlier decision of the Tribunal. As regards the contentions raised by the Revenue are concerned, the Ld. AR took support of the order of the TPO, the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A). 13. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. As regards to Ground No. 1 to 9 of the Revenue’s appeal, it is pertinent to note that the CIT(A) relied upon the order for A.Y. 2008-09 decided by the same CIT(A) in the case of the assessee company. Appeal for A.Y. 2008-09 against the order of CIT(A) has already been decided by the Tribunal, New Delhi in ITA No. 4034/Del/2013 and 3887/Del/2013 vide order dated 12.11.2015. The findings of the Tribunal have been recorded in para 12.18 at page 34 of the order. Thus, Ground No. 1 to Ground No. 9 of Revenue’s appeal are dismissed. As regards additional grounds in Assessment Year 2009-10 relating to the issue of LIBOR + 100 or 200 is concerned, the issue was settled by the assessee before the Income Tax Authorities thereby filing application under “Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme”. Besides this, the CIT(A) has directed the AO/TPO to charge interest rate at the rate of LIBOR+5% on the loan advanced to its AE and delete the balance interest. There is no need to interfere with the said directions. Therefore, additional grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed. Hence, ITA No. 78/Del/2016 is dismissed. 14. As regards appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11, the facts in this year are identical to the facts of the earlier Assessment Years which was decided by the Tribunal in ITA No. 4034/Del/2013 & ITA No. 3887/del/2013 for Assessment Year 2008-09 as well as ITA Nos. 5373, 4031 & 4032(Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10) order dated 12/11/2015 in favour of the assessee. The new project during the year under appeal was Omaxe City Bhewadi-2 on which deduction was claimed at Rs.5,21,78,612/-. The claim of deduction u/s 80IB in respect of Omaxe City, Bhiwadi-2 was never disputed by the Revenue. There was no distinguishing facts brought out by the Revenue either in assessment order or in the order of the CIT(A). Thus, Ground No. 1 to 9 of Revenue’s appeal are dismissed. As regards additional grounds in Assessment Year 2010-11 relating to the issue of LIBOR + 100 or 200 is concerned, the issue was settled by the assessee before the Income Tax Authorities thereby filing application under “Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme”. Besides this, the CIT(A) has directed the AO/TPO to charge interest rate at the rate of LIBOR+5% on the loan advanced to its AE and delete the balance interest. There is no need to interfere Printed from counselvise.com 14 ITA Nos. 3630, 3631, 3564 &3565/Del/2025 Omaxe Limited with the said directions. Therefore, additional grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed. Therefore, ITA No. 79/Del/2016 is dismissed. 15. In result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.” 9. By respectfully following the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Assessee’s own case for A.Y 2010-11 (supra), we dismiss the Grounds No. No. 3, 4 & 5 of the Assessee’s Appeals. 10. In the result, Appeals of the Assessee in ITA No. 3564/Del/2015 & ITA No. 3565/Del/2015 are dismissed. Revenue’s Appeals 11. The grievance of the Departments Grounds of Appeal No. 1 to 7 in both the Appeals filed by the Department areagainstnot upholding the disallowance of the deduction claimed u/s 80IB(10) of the Act in respect of the projects of the Assessee namely OmaxeHeightsFairdabad, Omaxe City IndorMangaliya, Omaxe City Jaipur, Omaxe City Bhiwadi I, Omaxe City Bhiwadi II, Omaxe New Heights, Faridabad and Royal Residency Ludhiana. The Department's Representative relying on the assessment order sought for allowing the Appeal of the Assessee. 12. Per contra, the Ld. Assessee's Representative submitted that all above mentioned projects are considered by the Co-ordinate Bench of Printed from counselvise.com the Tribunal in Assessee’s own case for Assessment Year 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011 Tribunal,sought for dismissal of the Appeals of the Revenue. 13. We have heard both the parties and perused the mater on record. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal for Assessment Year 2008 12/11/2015, considered the projects namely OmaxeHeight Omaxe City IndorMangaliyaandOmaxe in favour of the Assessee in following manner 12.17. The Assessing Officer denied deduction of Rs. 1,88,25,94,379/- claimed by the Assessee in respect of following housing projects u/s 80IB (10) of the Income Tax Act, short). 15 ITA Nos. 3630, 3631, 3564 &3565/Del/2025 the Tribunal in Assessee’s own case for Assessment Year 11, 2011-12, thus relying on the orders of the sought for dismissal of the Appeals of the Revenue. We have heard both the parties and perused the mater ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Assessee’s own case for Assessment Year 2008-09 in ITA No. 4034/Del/2013 vide order dated , considered the projects namely OmaxeHeight Omaxe City IndorMangaliyaandOmaxe City Jaipur and decided the issue e Assessee in following manners: 12.17. The Assessing Officer denied deduction of Rs. claimed by the Assessee in respect of following housing projects u/s 80IB (10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for ITA Nos. 3630, 3631, 3564 &3565/Del/2025 Omaxe Limited the Tribunal in Assessee’s own case for Assessment Years relying on the orders of the We have heard both the parties and perused the material available in Assessee’s own case in ITA No. 4034/Del/2013 vide order dated , considered the projects namely OmaxeHeightsFairdabad, City Jaipur and decided the issue 12.17. The Assessing Officer denied deduction of Rs. claimed by the Assessee in respect of following 1961 ('Act' for Printed from counselvise.com 16 ITA Nos. 3630, 3631, 3564 &3565/Del/2025 Omaxe Limited 12.18. The Assessing Officer has discussed the eligibility of the claimed deduction on projectwise and has denied the claim to the above extent mainly on the basis that out of several conditions laid down under sec. 80IB(10) of the Act, the assessee has not fulfilled the conditions laid down under clause (c) and (d) of section 80IB(10) of the Act. The conditions laid down in clause (c) of the section is that the residential unit should have maximum built up area of 1500 sq. feets as the project is not located within 25 kilometers from the municipal limit of Delhi and 1000 sq. ft. where project falls in the said 25 kilometers. As per the Assessing Officer, this condition was not satisfied as the prescribed area was exceeding in some of the flats of the projects. The Assessing Officer was also of the view that the claimed deduction is not allowable on plots. As per clause (d) of the section, there was no construction on the commercial plot and the commercial area belonged to other subsidiary company which was transferred in financial year 2009- 12.19 The Learned CIT(Appeals) has discussed above has basically allowed the claimed deduction on only those residential units, built up area of each of which was found as per the prescribed area in clause (c) to section 80IB(10) of the Act. We do not find infirmity in the First Appellate Order in this regard as it is well supported by the decisions of Hon'ble High Courts and different Benches of the ITAT followed by the Learned CIT(Appeals). The same is upheld. The ground Nos. 1 to 10 of the appeal preferred by the Revenue revolving on the issue of allowability of the claimed deduction by the assessee under sec. 80IB (10) of the Act on the profit arising out of the sale of the housing project approved by the local authorities are accordingly rejected. 12.20 In result, the appeal is dismissed.” 14. Further the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Assessee’s own case for A.Y 2010-11 in ITA No. 79/Del/2016 vide order dated 13/10/2021, considered the projects namely Omaxe City Bhiwadi I, Printed from counselvise.com 17 ITA Nos. 3630, 3631, 3564 &3565/Del/2025 Omaxe Limited Omaxe City Bhiwadi II and decided the issue by discussing the grounds of Appeal of the Revenue in following manners:- “11. The return of income for A.Y. 2010-11 was filed on 13.10.2010 declaring income at income at Rs. 23,01,19,070/- under the normal provisions of the Act. However, book profits at Rs. 79,06,38,634/- were reported u/s 115JB of the Act. Assessment order was passed on 26.05.2014 computing total income at Rs. 75,90,04,900/-. The assessee company had claimed deduction u/s 80IB at Rs. 45,10,61,542/- which was disallowed. In addition to this, deduction of Rs. 7,78,24,252/- was made on account of transfer pricing adjustment. The CIT(A) vide his order dated 17.09.2015, allowed relief u/s 80IB to the extent of Rs. 4,42,27,627/-. The assessee claimed deduction u/s 80IB in respect of ten different projects as have been in para 3 at page 2 of the assessment order and are being reproduced below: - S.No. Name of the Project Amount of deduction 1 Omaxe Heights, Faridabad 4,75,63,294/- 2 Omaxe City, Palwal 1,69,71,062/- 3 Omaxe City, Jaipur 6,47,64,166/- 4 Omaxe City, Manyakhedi 2,48,50,809/- 5 Omaxe City, Manyakhedi 11,67,263/- 6 North Avenue, Bahadurgah 12,86,063/- 7 Omaxe City, Patiala 17,76,30,561/- 8 Omaxe City, Chakkan, Baddi 1,06,67,039/- 9 Omaxe City, Bhiwadi-1 5,39,82,674/- 10 Omaxe City, Bhiwadi-2 5,21,78,612/- Total 45,10,61,542/- Facts in this year are also absolutely identical to the facts of the earlier years. The only new project during the year under appeal was Omaxe City, Bhiwadi-2 on which deduction was claimed at Rs. 5,21,78,612/- which was disallowed by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the CIT(A). Thus, claim of deduction u/s 80IB in respect of Omaxe City, Bhiwadi-2 is also not in dispute before the Tribunal. A Printed from counselvise.com 18 ITA Nos. 3630, 3631, 3564 &3565/Del/2025 Omaxe Limited list showing the amount of deduction disallowed by the Assessing Officer and amount of deduction allowed by the CIT(A) is reproduced as under: Name of the Project Amount of deduction Deduction allowed by Ld.CIT(A) 1 Omaxe Heights, Faridabad 4,75,63,294/- 4,75,63,294/- 2 Omaxe City, Palwal 1,69,71,062/- Nil 3 Omaxe City, Jaipur 6,47,64,166/- 4,01,67,410/- 4 Omaxe City, Mayakhedi 2,48,50,809/- NIl 5 Omaxe City, Mangaliya 11,67,263/- NIL 6 North Avenue, Bahadurgah 12,86,063/- 1286063/- 6 Omaxe City, Patiala 17,76,30,561/- Nil 7 Omaxe Parkswood-1, Baddi 1,06,67,039/- 10667039 8 Omaxe City, Bhiwadi-1 5,39,82,674/- 53982674/- 9 Omaxe City, Bhiwadi-2 5,21,78,612/- NIL Total 45,10,61,542/- 15,36,66,480/- 12. As regards adjustment made on account of transfer pricing, the Department has not raised any ground agitating the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Otherwise also, facts of the A/Y 2010-11 are absolutely identical to the facts of A/Y 2009-10. Thus, the Ld. AR prayed that the appeals filed by the Department deserved to be dismissed as the issue relating to claim of deduction u/s 80!B is fully covered by the earlier decision of the Tribunal. As regards the contentions raised by the Revenue are concerned, the Ld. AR took support of the order of the TPO, the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A). 13. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. As regards to Ground No. 1 to 9 of the Revenue’s appeal, it is pertinent to note that the CIT(A) relied upon the order for A.Y. 2008-09 decided by the same CIT(A) in the case of the assessee company. Appeal for A.Y. 2008-09 against the order of CIT(A) has already been decided by the Tribunal, New Delhi in ITA No. 4034/Del/2013 and 3887/Del/2013 vide order dated 12.11.2015. The findings of the Tribunal have been recorded in para 12.18 at page 34 of the order. Thus, Ground No. 1 to Ground No. 9 of Revenue’s appeal are dismissed. As regards additional grounds in Assessment Year 2009-10 relating to the issue of LIBOR + 100 or 200 is concerned, the issue was settled by the assessee before the Income Tax Authorities thereby filing application under “Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme”. Besides this, the CIT(A) has directed the AO/TPO to charge interest rate at the rate of LIBOR+5% on the loan Printed from counselvise.com 19 ITA Nos. 3630, 3631, 3564 &3565/Del/2025 Omaxe Limited advanced to its AE and delete the balance interest. There is no need to interfere with the said directions. Therefore, additional grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed. Hence, ITA No. 78/Del/2016 is dismissed. 14. As regards appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11, the facts in this year are identical to the facts of the earlier Assessment Years which was decided by the Tribunal in ITA No. 4034/Del/2013 & ITA No. 3887/del/2013 for Assessment Year 2008-09 as well as ITA Nos. 5373, 4031 & 4032(Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10) order dated 12/11/2015 in favour of the assessee. The new project during the year under appeal was Omaxe City Bhewadi-2 on which deduction was claimed at Rs.5,21,78,612/-. The claim of deduction u/s 80IB in respect of Omaxe City, Bhiwadi-2 was never disputed by the Revenue. There was no distinguishing facts brought out by the Revenue either in assessment order or in the order of the CIT(A). Thus, Ground No. 1 to 9 of Revenue’s appeal are dismissed. As regards additional grounds in Assessment Year 2010-11 relating to the issue of LIBOR + 100 or 200 is concerned, the issue was settled by the assessee before the Income Tax Authorities thereby filing application under “Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme”. Besides this, the CIT(A) has directed the AO/TPO to charge interest rate at the rate of LIBOR+5% on the loan advanced to its AE and delete the balance interest. There is no need to interfere with the said directions. Therefore, additional grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed. Therefore, ITA No. 79/Del/2016 is dismissed. 15. In result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.” 15. Further, the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Assessee’s own case for Assessment Year 2011-12 in ITA No. 4966/Del/2019 and ITA No. 5064/Del/2019, considered Project of Omaxenew HeightsFairdabad, Royal Residency Ludhiana and decided the issue in favour of the Assessee in following manners:- “10. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is found that the issue involved in the Grounds of Appeal have been decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated Printed from counselvise.com 20 ITA Nos. 3630, 3631, 3564 &3565/Del/2025 Omaxe Limited 12/11/2015 for Assessment Year 2008-09 in ITA No. 4034/Del/2013 and ITA No. 3887/Del/2013 and further the Tribunal vide order dated 13/10/2021 for the Assessment Year 2009-10 and 2010-11 in ITA No. 78/Del/2016 and ITA No. 79/Del/2016 decided the issue against the Revenue. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal for the Assessment Year 2010-11 in ITA No. 79/Del/2018 held as under:- 8. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee claimed deduction u/s 80IB in respect of nine different projects as have been in para 6 at page 2 of the assessment order and are being reproduced below: - S.No. Name of the Project Amount of deduction 1 Omaxe Heights, Faridabad 2,44,93,489/- 2 Omaxe Riviera, Pant Nagar 8,77,12,124/- 3 Omaxe City, Palwal 1,01,45,152/- 4 Omaxe City, Jaipur 12,40,19,747/- 5 Omaxe City, Mangaliya 1,37,14,812/- 6 North Avenue, Bahadurgah 1,50,71,498/- 7 Omaxe City, Patiala 18,13,04,205/- 8 Omaxe City, Chakkan, Baddi 15,191/- 9 Omaxe City, Bhiwadi-1 11,25,17,254/- Total 56,89,93,472/- The CIT(A) adjudicated the appeal and his findings are in para 6 starting from page 79 of his order. It has been observed by the CIT(A) that all projects undertaken by the respondent company in this year are the same except the project \"Omaxe City Bhiwadi-1” on which deduction was claimed at Rs. 11,25,17,254/-. The CIT(A) in para 5.3 at page 89 has concluded as under: - “It may be mentioned that, the above findings are in respect of all projects covered during the year except Bhiwadi-1.1 have examined the facts of Bhiwadi-1 project. This project fall under the Printed from counselvise.com 21 ITA Nos. 3630, 3631, 3564 &3565/Del/2025 Omaxe Limited category of plotted colony where in some cases only sites are sold and some cases villas are sold. This project is similar to “Omaxe City, Jaipur” Therefore, deduction u/s 80IB(1)) in this project will be allowed as per my direction in respect of Omaxe City, Jaipur, Following my earlier decision for A/Y 2008-09, I direct the assessing officer to allow deduction u/s 80IB(10) in similar manner as provided in that order for all projects. Accordingly, these grounds of appeal are partly allowed. ” In respect of project at Bhiwadi-1, the relevant documents relating to the said project have been filed along with copy of Auditors Report, copy of statutory approvals and copy of completion certificate by the Assessee at the time of assessment proceedings. A chart showing the ultimate deduction allowed by the CIT(A) in respect of various projects is as under: - The CIT(A), while deciding the appeal, relied upon the appellate order for A.Y. 2008-09 decided by the same CIT(A) in the case of the assessee company. Appeal for A.Y. 2008-09 against the order of CIT(A) has already been decided by the Income Tax Appellate Printed from counselvise.com 22 ITA Nos. 3630, 3631, 3564 &3565/Del/2025 Omaxe Limited Tribunal, New Delhi in ITA No. 4034/Del/2013 and 3887/Del/2013 vide order dated 12.11.2015. The findings of the Tribunal have been recorded in para 12.18 at page 34 of the order. Thus, Ground No. 1 to Ground No. 9 of Revenue’s appeal are covered in favour of the assessee. Thus, in nutshell, the Ld. AR submitted that the issue in principal regarding claim of deduction u/s 80IB is covered by the earlier decision of the Tribunal for A.Y. 2008-09. As already submitted above, except the project at Omaxe City, Bhiwandi-1, all other projects were there even during A.Y. 2008-09 and as regards projects at Omaxe City, Bhiwandi-1, the facts are absolutely identical to the facts of the other projects on which deduction has already been allowed. In respect of Omaxe City, Bhiwandi-1, also deduction has been allowed separately in as much as where there were on the plots, no deduction has been allowed and where there were constructed flats, deduction has been allowed. 9. The Ld. AR further submitted that the Revenue has raised additional ground of appeal agitating the issue relief allowed by the CIT(A) on ground of adjustments made in transfer pricing. The Ld. AR submitted that Omaxe set up Rohtas Holdings (Gulf) Ltd. in UAE during FY 2008-09 and entered into a MOU dated 4th June 2009 with Rohtas Holdings (Gulf) Ltd and Golden Crescent Redd& General Trading Ltd, Dubai to the effect that a project was to be undertaken in the company on behalf of Omaxe Limited and Omaxe Limited will provide funds for the same. Thus, a sum of AED 44.5 million was paid towards the first installment for the purchase of the land. Total payment of AED 45 million was made to Rohtas Holdings (Gulf) Ltd out of which AED 0.5 million was toward share capital. As per the MOU Omaxe Limited had agreed to receive interest at LIBOR + 300 basis points after 3 years or commencement of the Printed from counselvise.com 23 ITA Nos. 3630, 3631, 3564 &3565/Del/2025 Omaxe Limited development activities, whichever is earlier. The matter was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer who treated this as an international transaction and while benchmarking this transaction, he treated these as Indian Rupee loans and took the prevailing interest rates of 12 percent to make an adjustment to the income of the assessee. The assessee raised various grounds of appeal before the CIT(Appeal). The CIT (Appeal) vide order dated 17.09.2015 at para 7.3 for both A.Ys. 2009-10 and 2010-11 decided the matter with the following findings: \"Having held that interest on such loan to AE needs to be determined at Arm’s length price, I do not agree with the finding of the Ld. TPO that benchmarking of interest has to be done keeping in view opportunity cost in India being source country. The benchmarking of the interest has to be done on the basis of application of funds and the currency of loan rather than source funds. On this issue I rely on various judicial pronouncements reported as under: \u0001 Siva Industries and Holdings Ltd. vs ACIT [ITA No. 2148/Mds/2148] \u0001 Tata Autocomp Systems Ltd vs ACIT [ITA No. 7354/Mum/2011] \u0001 Four Soft Ltd. vs DICT 142 TTJ 338 \u0001 DCIT vs Tech Mahindra Ltd [46 SOT 141 Mum] \u0001 Tricorn India Ltd. vs ITO [ITA No. 332/Mu m/2014] \u0001 Aurino Solutions Ltd [ita no. 7872/Mum/2011] \u0001 Hinduja Global Solutions Ltd vs ACIT [ITA No. 254/Mum/2013] \u0001 Cotton Natural India Private Limited [TS -304-lTAT-201(DEL)-TP] The decision in the case of cotton natural India private Limited has been affirmed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi reported at 2015 (1/108 DTR(DEL)1) where it has been held that currency in which loan is to be repaid normally determines the rate of return on the money lent. Loan being given in US Dollars therefore, Indian rate of corporate bonds or PLR Printed from counselvise.com 24 ITA Nos. 3630, 3631, 3564 &3565/Del/2025 Omaxe Limited of SBI would not be applicable. In the present case also, the loan is to be repaid in USD, therefore, LIBOR rate should be applicable and not the Indian Rate of interest not consider the risk involve as AE being startup company in my view the LIBOR rate should be increased to 500 basis points as per the ECB guidelines of the RBI as the loan given to the AE is for a longer period. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case I hereby direct the AO/TPO to charge interest rate at the rate of LIBOR+5 percent on the loan advanced to its AE and delete the balance interest. Accordingly, these grounds of appeal are partly allowed.” 10. Against the said finding the assessee had filed an appeal on the ground that the rate should be restricted to LIBOR. However, the assessee has already availed the benefit under the Vivaad Se Vishvaas Scheme and therefore the ground of the assessee was no longer contested by the assessee. However, against the order of the CIT (Appeals), the Revenue has filed additional grounds. Assessment Year 2010-11 11. The return of income for A.Y. 2010-11 was filed on 13.10.2010 declaring income at income at Rs. 23,01,19,070/- under the normal provisions of the Act. However, book profits at Rs. 79,06,38,634/- were reported u/s 115JB of the Act. Assessment order was passed on 26.05.2014 computing total income at Rs. 75,90,04,900/-. The assessee company had claimed deduction u/s 80IB at Rs. 45,10,61,542/- which was disallowed. In addition to this, deduction of Rs. 7,78,24,252/- was made onaccount of transfer pricing adjustment. The CIT(A) vide his order dated 17.09.2015, allowed relief u/s 80IB to the extent of Rs. 4,42,27,627/-. The assessee claimed deduction u/s 80IB in respect of ten different projects as have been in para 3 at page 2 of the assessment order and are being reproduced below: - Printed from counselvise.com 25 ITA Nos. 3630, 3631, 3564 &3565/Del/2025 Omaxe Limited S.No. Name of the Project Amount of deduction 1 Omaxe Heights, Faridabad 4,75,63,294/- 2 Omaxe City, Palwal 1,69,71,062/- 3 Omaxe City, Jaipur 6,47,64,166/- 4 Omaxe City, Manyakhedi 2,48,50,809/- 5 Omaxe City, Manyakhedi 11,67,263/- 6 North Avenue, Bahadurgah 12,86,063/- 7 Omaxe City, Patiala 17,76,30,561/- 8 Omaxe City, Chakkan, Baddi 1,06,67,039/- 9 Omaxe City, Bhiwadi-1 5,39,82,674/- 10 Omaxe City, Bhiwadi-2 5,21,78,612/- Total 45,10,61,542/- Facts in this year are also absolutely identical to the facts of the earlier years. The only new project during the year under appeal was Omaxe City, Bhiwadi-2 on which deduction was claimed at Rs. 5,21,78,612/- which was disallowed by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the CIT(A). Thus, claim of deduction u/s 80IB in respect of Omaxe City, Bhiwadi-2 is also not in dispute before the Tribunal. A list showing the amount of deduction disallowed by the Assessing Officer and amount of deduction allowed by the CIT(A) is reproduced as under:- Printed from counselvise.com 26 ITA Nos. 3630, 3631, 3564 &3565/Del/2025 Omaxe Limited 12. As regards adjustment made on account of transfer pricing, the Department has not raised any ground agitating the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Otherwise also, facts of the A/Y 2010-11 are absolutely identical to the facts of A/Y 2009-10. Thus, the Ld. AR prayed that the appeals filed by the Department deserved to be dismissed as the issue relating to claim of deduction u/s 80!B is fully covered by the earlier decision of the Tribunal. As regards the contentions raised by the Revenue are concerned, the Ld. AR took support of the order of the TPO, the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A). 13. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. As regards to Ground No. 1 to 9 of the Revenue’s appeal, it is pertinent to note that the CIT(A) relied upon the order for A.Y. 2008-09 decided by the same CIT(A) in the case of the assessee company. Appeal for A.Y. 2008-09 against the order of CIT(A) has already been decided by the Tribunal, New Delhi in ITA No. 4034/Del/2013 and 3887/Del/2013 vide order dated 12.11.2015. The findings of the Tribunal have been recorded in para 12.18 at page 34 of the order. Thus, Ground No. 1 to Ground No. 9 of Revenue’s appeal are dismissed. As regards additional grounds in Assessment Year 2009-10 relating to the issue of LIBOR + 100 or 200 is concerned, the issue was settled by the assessee before the Income Tax Authorities thereby filing application under “Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme”. Besides this, the CIT(A) has directed the AO/TPO to charge interest rate at the rate of LIBOR+5% on the loan advanced to its AE and delete the balance interest. There is no need to interfere with the said directions. Therefore, additional grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed. Hence, ITA No. 78/Del/2016 is dismissed. Printed from counselvise.com 27 ITA Nos. 3630, 3631, 3564 &3565/Del/2025 Omaxe Limited 14. As regards appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11, the facts in this year are identical to the facts of the earlier Assessment Years which was decided by the Tribunal in ITA No. 4034/Del/2013 & ITA No. 3887/del/2013 for Assessment Year 2008-09 as well as ITA Nos. 5373, 4031 & 4032(Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09 &2009-10) order dated 12/11/2015 in favour of the assessee. The new project during the year under appeal was Omaxe City Bhewadi-2 on which deduction was claimed at Rs.5,21,78,612/-. The claim of deduction u/s 80IB in respect of Omaxe City, Bhiwadi-2 was never disputed by the Revenue. There was no distinguishing facts brought out by the Revenue either in assessment order or in the order of the CIT(A). Thus, Ground No. 1 to 9 of Revenue’s appeal are dismissed. As regards additional grounds in Assessment Year 2010-11 relating to the issue of LIBOR + 100 or 200 is concerned, the issue was settled by the assessee before the Income Tax Authorities thereby filing application under “Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme”. Besides this, the CIT(A) has directed the AO/TPO to charge interest rate at the rate of LIBOR+5% on the loan advanced to its AE and delete the balance interest. There is no need to interfere with the said directions. Therefore, additional grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed. Therefore, ITA No. 79/Del/2016 is dismissed.” 11. By respectfully following the order in Assessee’s own case in the Assessment Year 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 (supra) the grounds of Appeal of the Revenue are dismissed.” 16. By respectfully following the orders of the Tribunal (supra) and following the principal of consistency, finding no merits in the ground No. 1 to 7 of the Revenue, we dismiss the ground No. 1 to 7 of the Revenue. 17. The Ground No. 8 to12 of the Revenue’s Appeals are pertaining to Transfer Pricing involving the issue of interest free loan to Assessee’s wholly owned subsidiary company M/s Rohtas Holding Gulf Limited. The issue of interest free loan to Assessee’s wholly own subsidiary Printed from counselvise.com 28 ITA Nos. 3630, 3631, 3564 &3565/Del/2025 Omaxe Limited company i.e. M/s Rohtas Holding Gulf Limited has been dealt and decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Assessee’s own case for Assessment Year 2010-11 in ITA No. 79/Del/2016, wherein both the grounds of appeal filed by the Assessee as well as the Revenue are dismissed. 18. By respectfully following the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Assessee’s own case for A.Y 2010-11 (supra), we dismiss the Grounds No. 8 to 12 of the Revenue’s appeals. 19. In the result, Appeal of the Revenue in ITA No. ITA No. 3630/DEL/2025 (A.Y. 2012-13) and ITA No. 3631/DEL/2025(A.Y. 2013- 14)are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 04th February, 2026 Sd/- Sd/- (KRINWANT SAHAY) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Date:- 04.02.2026 Reshma Naheed, Sr.P.S Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com 29 ITA Nos. 3630, 3631, 3564 &3565/Del/2025 Omaxe Limited Printed from counselvise.com "