Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(2), Bangalore V. Prasad Technology Park Pvt Ltd , Bangalore

ITA 1219/BANG/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1348 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 30-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR P V PRADEEP KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: V K GURUNATHAN
• Section: 142(1); 6

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH C BEFORE SHRI N.V VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.12 19/BANG/2017 (ASST. YEAR 2012-13) THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-5(1)(2), BENGALURU. . APPELLANT VS. PRASAD TECHNOLOGY PARK PVT. LTD., 2/10, 3 RD FLOOR, 80 FEET ROAD, POOJAJRI LAYOUT, RMV 2 ND STAGE, BENGALURU. . RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : DR. P.V PRADEEP KUMAR, ADDL. CI T RESPONDENT BY : SHRI V.K GURUNATHAN, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING : 10-09-2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10- 09-2018 O R D E R PER G MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINS T THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) - 5, BENGALURU DATED 15-02-2017 AND IT PERTAINS TO ASST. YEAR 2012 -13. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: ITA NO.1219/B/17 2 FROM THE FACTS, GROUNDS AND REASONS SET OUT HEREIN ABOVE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIRNESS, THE APPELLANT RESPECTFULLY PRAYS THAT: 1. THE APPELLANT SHOULD BE ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION OF PROFITS IN TERMS OF SECTION 80-IA(4)(III) TO THE EX TENT OF RS.1,36,54,406/-. 2. THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF/HE ACT INITIATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO BE SET ASIDE. 3. TO GRANT STAY UPON COLLECTION OF PENALTY TILL TH E DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF OPERATION AND MAINTENANC E OF INDUSTRIAL PARK HAS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASST. YEAR 2012-13 ON 26/9/2012 DECLARING NIL TOTAL INCOME AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 80IA(4)(III) AND 80IA(4)(IV) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961. THE CA SE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND NOTICE U/S 143(2) AND 142(1) OF TH E INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 WERE ISSUED. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICES, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED FROM TIME TO TIME AND FILED VARIOUS DETAIL S AS CALLED FOR. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF ASST. PROCEEDINGS, THE AO N OTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BUILT AN INDUSTRIAL PARK ON THE LAND A LLOTTED BY KIADB. THE AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS DERIVI NG INCOME BY LEASING OUT THE SAID INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY PARK AND CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80IA(4)(III) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT1961. IN OR DER TO ASCERTAIN CORRECTNESS ON DEDUCTION CLAIMED, THE AO CALLED UPO N THE ASSESSEE TO FILE NECESSARY EVIDENCES ALONG WITH APPROVALS IF AN Y TO JUSTIFY DEDUCTION CLAIMED C/S 80IA(4)(III) OF THE INCOME-TA X ACT 1961. IN ITA NO.1219/B/17 3 RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED VARI OUS DETAILS INCLUDING APPROVAL FROM THE MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRI ES. THE AO AFTER CONSIDERING THE NECESSARY SUBMISSION OF THE A SSESSEE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FULFILLED NECESSARY PARAMETERS LAID DOWN FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 80IA(4)(III) OF THE INCOME-T AX ACT 1961 AND ACCORDINGLY, DENIED DEDUCTION CLAIMED FOR RS.1,36,5 4,406/- AND ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASST. ORDER, THE ASSESSEE PREFE RRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS REITERATED ITS SUBMISSION MADE BEFORE THE AO THAT THE ISSUE HAS AL READY BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE ITAT FOR ASST. YEARS 2007-08 TO 2 011-12, WHEREIN UNDER SIMILAR SET OF FACTS, THE AO HAS DISALLOWED T HE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IA(4)(III) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 19 61, BUT THE ITAT HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM. THEREFORE, WITHOUT THERE BE ING ANY MATERIAL CHANGES IN FACTS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATIO N, THE AO WAS INCORRECT IN DENYING THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION CLAIM ED U/S 80IA(4)(III) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961. 6. THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE RELEVANT SUBMIS SION OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE ITAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR EARLIER ASST. YEARS HELD THAT SINCE TH E FACTS ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS ALREADY CONSIDERED BY THE ITAT FOR EARLIE R YEARS, BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE ITAT IN ASSESSEES OW N CASE FOR ASST. YEAR 2011-12, THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S 80IA(4)(III ) OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961 IS ALLOWED. ITA NO.1219/B/17 4 7. RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS E XTRACTED HEREUNDER: 6. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, STATEMENT OF FACTS AND ALSO GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE HON'BLE ITAT VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 21/03/2014 IN THE APPELLANT'S OWN CASE FOR THE AN 2007-08 & 2008-09 HAS GIVEN DECISION IN THE FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT, I HAVE ADJUDICATED THE GROUNDS IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT FOR A.Y.2011-12 WHEREIN IT IS HELD AS FOLLOW: IN THIS REGARD, WE HAVE PERUSED THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CREATIVE INFOCITY LTD (SUPRA) RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE AN D FIND THAT IS RELEVANT AND SQUARELY APPLIES TO THE F ACTS OF THE ASSESSEE'S CASE. IN THE CITED CASE, THE HON' BLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT ONCE APPROVAL WAS GRANTED BY THE MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA TO THE ASSESSEE, THE CBDT WAS DUTY BOUND TO NOTIFY THE INDUSTRIAL PARK/STP FOR BENEFITS U/S. 801A OF THE ACT, WITHOUT ANY FURTHER INVESTIGATION AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAD COMPLIED WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS ENVISAGED IN THE SCHEME. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS DISCUSSED ABOVE AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CREATIVE INFOCITY LTD. (SUPRA), WE FIND SUBSTANTIAL MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE NOTIFICATION TO BE ISSUED BY CBDT IS ONLY A FORMALITY ONCE THE APPROVAL IS GRANTED BY THE MINISTRY OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, AND, THEREFORE, HOLD THAT ONCE THE CBDT NOTIFICATION IS ISSUED, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFITS U/S.801A (4)(III) OF THE ACT FROM THE DATE OF APPROVAL BY MINISTRY OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, SUBJECT TO THE COMPLIANCE OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SPECIFIED THEREIN. THERE I S NOTHING TO SUGGEST THAT THE BENEFITS OF THE DEDUCTI ON U/S. 80/A (4)(III) OF THE ACT ARE AVAILABLE ONLY FR OM ITA NO.1219/B/17 5 THE DATE OF NOTIFICATION BY THE CBDT. WE, THEREFORE , HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/ S. 8OLA (4)(III) OF THE ACT FOR BOTH ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 & 2008-09, THE TWO YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. SINCE, THE FACTS MUTATIS MUTANDIS WITH RESPECT TO T HE AMOUNT OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED IN THE APPEAL UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE SIMILAR TO THAT OF AN 2007-08 & 2008-09, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL'S ORDER AND ALSO MY OWN ORDER FOR A.Y,2011-12, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FOR THIS YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ALSO ARE HEREBY ALLOWED. 8. THE LD AR FOR THE ASSESSEE, AT THE TIME OF HE ARING SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS SQUARELY COVER ED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE ITAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASST. YEARS 2010-10 AND 2011-12, WHEREIN THE ITAT BY FOLL OWING ITS EARLIER ORDER FOR THE ASST. YEARS 2007-08 AND 2008-09 HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S 80IA(4)(III) OF THE I NCOME-TAX ACT 1961. 9. THE LD DR PRESENT FOR THE REVENUE, ON THE OTHER HAND FAIRLY ACCEPTED THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSE SSEE BY THE DECISION OF ITAT FOR EARLIER YEARS. 10. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ITAT HAS CONSIDERED THE I SSUE OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S 80IA(4)(III) OF THE INCOME-TAX 1961 FOR ASST. YEARS 2010- 11 AND 2011-12 IN ITA NO.1498 & 1499/BANG/2015 AND BY FOLLOWING ITS EARLIER ORDER FOR ASST. YEARS 2007-08 AND 2008- 09 IN ITA NOS.138 AND 139/BANG/2013 HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITL ED TO DEDUCTION ITA NO.1219/B/17 6 U/S 80IA(4)(III) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 AND REL EVANT PORTION OF THE ITAT ORDER IS EXTRACTED BELOW:- 5.3.1 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH PARTIES AND CAREFULLY PERUSED AND CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS CITED. IT IS NOT IN DIS PUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE, IN THE CASE ON HAND, HAS SET UP A STP, (VIZ. INDUSTRIAL PARK) FOR WHICH IT HAS OBTAINED THE APPROVAL FROM THE MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, GOVT. OF INDIA VIDE ORDER DT.13.4.2006. IT IS SEEN THAT IN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD RAISED AN ISSUE REGARDING THE NON-COMPLIANCE TO THE CONDITION STIPULATED IN THE APPROVAL ACCORDED REGARDING THE NUMBER OF UNITS TO BE MAINTAINED IN THE STP. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT IN THE REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS), THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAIRLY ACCEPTED THAT THE CONDITION REGARDING MAINTAINING OF ATLEAST THREE UNITS HAS BEEN FULFILLED. THAT THE CBDT HAS SINCE NOTIFIED THE UNDERTAKING VIDE NOTIFICATION DT.21.2.2012 IS ALSO AN UNDISPUTED FACT ON RECORD. THAT THE CBDT NOTIFICATION HAS REPRODUCED / CONTAINS THE CONDITIONS STIPULATED IN THE APPROVAL LETTER OF THE MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, GOVT. OF INDIA DT.13.4.2006 AND IS RELATED TO APPROVAL GRANTED BY THE MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY IS ALSO CLEAR FROM THE RECORD AND HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). 5.3.2 HENCE, WE FIND THAT THE ONLY ISSUE FOR ADJUDICATION IS WHETHER THE CBDT NOTIFICATION DT.21.2.2012 CAN BE TAKEN TO BE APPLICABLE FOR THE PERIOD RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 ONWARDS IN KEEPING WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY DT.13.4.2006 OR ONLY FROM THE DATE OF THE CBDT NOTIFICATION. THE LETTER OF APPROVAL ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY DT.13.4.2006 GRANTS APPROVAL TO THE ASSESSEE FOR SETTING UP AN INDUSTRIAL PARK, SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS AS ITA NO.1219/B/17 7 STIPULATED THEREIN. PARA 5 IN THE LETTER RELATED T O THE GRANT OF INCOME TAX BENEFITS UNDER SECTION 80 IA(4)(III) OF THE ACT READS AS UNDER : 5. FOLLOWING CONDITIONS IN PARA 9 OF THE INDUSTRIAL PARK SCHEME, 2002, MAY PARTICULARLY BE NOTED FOR SUITABLE COMPLIANCE: (I) THE INCOME TAX BENEFITS UNDER SUB-SECTION 4(III) OF SECTION 80 IA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WILL BE AVAILABLE ONLY AFTER THE PROPOSED NUMBER OF INDUSTRIAL UNITS MENTIONED IN PARA 1(VII) OF THIS APPROVAL LETTER, ARE LOCATED IN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK. (II) IN CASE THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE INDUSTRIAL PARK IS DELAYED BY MORE THAN ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE AS INDICATED IN PARA 1(XI) OF THIS APPROVAL LETTER, FRESH APPROVAL SHALL BE REQUIRED UNDER THE INDUSTRIAL PARK SCHEME, 2002, FOR AVAILING BENEFITS UNDER SUB-SECTION 4(III) OF SECTION 80 IA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. PARA 1(VII) OF THE APPROVAL LETTER DT.13.4.2006 OF THE MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY SPECIFIES THAT THREE INDUSTRIAL UNITS ARE TO BE LOCATED IN TH E INDUSTRIAL PARK. PARA 1 (XI) OF THE APPROVAL LETTER SPECIFIES THAT T HE EXPECTED DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF THE INDUSTRIAL PARK SHALL BE 30.11.2005. FROM THE DETAILS BROUGHT ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SATISFIED BOTH THESE CONDITIONS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS REMAND REPORT TO THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THERE ARE LEASE AGREEMENTS EVIDENCING THE EXISTENCE OF THREE INDUSTRIAL UNITS IN THE ASSESSEE'S INDUSTRIAL PARKS (VIZ. STP). FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS BROUGHT ON RECORD A CERTIFICATE DT.28.5.2012 FROM THE JOINT DIRECTOR, DISTRICT INDUSTRIAL CENTRE, BANGALORE TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN OPERATING AND MAINTAINING THE INDUSTRIAL PARK (STP) SINCE 30.11.2005 AND THAT THE SAID INDUSTRIAL PARK HAS ITA NO.1219/B/17 8 12 SEPARATE INDEPENDENT AND IDENTIFIABLE UNITS SINCE INCEPTION AND THAT NONE OF THE UNITS INDIVIDUALLY OCCUPY MORE THAN 50% OF THE BUILT-UP AREA. IN THIS FACTUAL MATRIX, AS LAID OUT ABOVE, W E HAVE NO HESITATION IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SATISFIED THE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN THE APPROVAL LETTER DT.13.4.2006, ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, GOVT. OF INDIA, FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 IA(4)(III) OF THE ACT. 5.4.1 REGARDING THE QUESTION OF AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR BEING ALLOWED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 IA(4)(III) OF THE ACT FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 AND 2008-09, THE FACTS ON RECORD EVIDENCE THAT THE ASSESSEE'S INDUSTRIAL PARK / STP IS OPERATIONAL FROM 30.11.2005 AND THAT THE ASSESSEE SATISFIES THE CONDITIONS STIPULAT ED FOR AVAILING THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 IA(4)(III) OF THE ACT. IN THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF TH E CASE ON HAND, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS NO REASON TO DENY THE ASSESSEE THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 80 IA(4)(III) OF THE ACT MERELY BECAUSE THE CBDT NOTIFICATION WAS ISSUED MUCH LATER, ON 21.2.2012, WHEN THE SAID NOTIFICATION IS ISSUED IN VIEW OF THE APPROVAL GRANTED BY THE MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, GOVT. OF INDIA ON 13.4.2006. ONE OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN THE ANNEXURE TO THE CBDT NOTIFICATION DT.21.2.2012 AT S.NO.5 STATES THAT 5. IN CASE THE INDUSTRIAL PARK DID NOT COMMENCE BY 31.3.2006, FRESH APPROVAL WILL BE REQUIRED UNDER THE INDUSTRIAL PARK SCHEME, 2008 SUBJECT TO THE APPLICABILITY UNDER THAT SCHEME FOR AVAILING BENEFITS UNDER SUB-SECTION 4(III) OF SECTION 80 IA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. IF THE CBDT NOTIFICATION DT.21.2.2012 STIPULATES A CONDITION OF COMMENCEMENT OF THE INDUSTRIAL PARK / STP BY 31.3.2006, THE INEVITABLE CONCLUSION IS THAT THE BENEFITS ARE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE FROM MARCH, 2006, IF THE INDUSTRIAL PARK COMMENCES BY THAT TIME. ANY OTHER REFERENCE, IN OUR CONSIDERED ITA NO.1219/B/17 9 OPINION, WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE JOINT DIRECTOR, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE , BANGALORE HAS ISSUED A COMMENCEMENT OF ACTIVITIES CERTIFICATE CERTIFYING THAT THE INDUSTRI AL PARK / STP OF THE ASSESSEE COMMENCED ITS ACTIVITIES ON 30.11.2005. 5.4.2 IN THIS REGARD, WE HAVE PERUSED THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CREATIVE INFOCITY LTD (SUPRA) RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE AND FIND THAT IS RELEVANT AND SQUARELY APPLIES TO THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE'S CASE. IN TH E CITED CASE, THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT ONCE APPROVAL WAS GRANTED BY THE MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, GOVT. OF INDIA TO THE ASSESSEE, THE CBDT WAS DUTY BOUND TO NOTIFY THE INDUSTRIAL PARK / STP FOR BENEFITS UNDER SECTION 80 IA OF THE ACT, WITHOUT ANY FURTHER INVESTIGATION AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAD COMPLIED WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS ENVISAGED IN THE SCHEME. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS DISCUSSED ABOVE AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CREATIVE INFOCITY LTD. (SUPRA), WE FIND SUBSTANTIAL MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE NOTIFICATION TO BE ISSUED BY CBDT IS ONLY A FORMALITY ONCE THE APPROVAL IS GRANTED BY THE MINISTRY OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY, GOVT. OF INDIA, AND, THEREFORE, HOLD THAT ONCE THE CBDT NOTIFICATION IS ISSUED, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFITS UNDER SECTION 80 IA (4)(III) OF THE ACT FROM THE DATE OF APPROVAL BY MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, GOVT. OF INDIA, SUBJECT TO THE COMPLIANCE OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SPECIFIED THEREIN. THERE IS NOTHING TO SUGGEST THA T THE BENEFITS OF THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 IA (4)(III) OF THE ACT ARE AVAILABLE ONLY FROM THE DAT E OF NOTIFICATION BY THE CBDT. WE, THEREFORE, HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 IA (4)(III) OF THE ACT FOR BOTH ASSESSME NT YEARS 2007-08 & 2008-09; THE TWO YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. ITA NO.1219/B/17 10 11. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER AND CONSISTENT WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CAS E FOR EARLIER ASST. YEARS, WE DIRECT THE AO TO ALLOW THE BENEFIT OF DED UCTION CLAIMED U/S 80IA(4)(III) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUE APPEAL IS DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10 TH SEPT 2018. -SD- -SD- (N.V VASUDEVAN) (G MANJUNATHA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VMS. BANGALORE DATED : 10/09/2018 COPY TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE REVENUE 3.THE CIT CONCERNED. 4.THE CIT(A) CONCERNED. 5.DR 6.GF BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, I TAT, BANGALORE