The DCIT, Circle-1, Surat V. En-Vision Enviro Engineers Pvt.Ltd., Surat

ITA 1593/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 89506 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 02-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 09-06-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SONIA KUMAR
• Keywords: Depreciation
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1593/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 DY. CIT, CIRCLE -1, SURAT. APPELLANT VS. M/S EN-VISION ENVIRO ENGINEERS (P) LTD., 208,G-TOWER, SHANKESHWAR, COMPLEX, MAJURA GATE, SURAT. RESPONDENT PAN :AACE 9785 F APPELLANT BY : SMT. SONIA KUMAR, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY : SMT. URVASHI SODHAN, AR DATE OF HEARING : 02/06/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10/06/2015 ITA NO.1593/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 2 O R D E R PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-1, SURAT, DATED 14.3.2011 WHEREIN THE FOLLO WING EFFECTIVE GROUND HAS BEEN RAISED :- 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE AND IN LA W, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.66, 53,384/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION CLAIME D U/S 80IA(4) WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE MATERIAL FACTS THA T FOR ELIGIBLE OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IA(4), THE ASSESSEE MUS T FULFILL THE PRIME CONDITION THAT THE ASSESSEE MUST BE OWNER OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITIES, WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 80IA(4) OF THE ACT AND ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO FULFI LL THE SAID PRIME CONDITION. 2. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSULTING OF POLLUTION CONTROL AND ENVIRONMENTAL R ELATED WORKS, ERECTION AND COMMISSIONING OF PLANT AND ALSO PROVID ING SERVICE OF THE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL OF BIO MEDICAL WASTE. TH E ASSESSEE FILED ITS E-RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.09.2008 SHOWING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.24,32,420/-. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE I.T. ITA NO.1593/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 3 ACT, 1961 (HEREIN AFTER THE ACT). THE CASE WAS TAKE N UP FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND ACCORDINGLY NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. SUBSEQUENTLY NOTICE D ATED 13.08.2010 U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT WAS ALSO ISSUED AN D DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH DETAILED QUESTIONNAIRE . IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICES THE ASSESSEE FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF ASSESSEE THE AO REJE CTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND MADE ADDITION OF RS.66,53,384/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM U/S 80IA(4) OF THE ACT FOR TH E FOLLOWING REASONS :- 1. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF RS.66,53,384/- IN RESPECT OF THE INCOME DERIVED FRO M THE BUSINESS OF WORK CONTRACT WHICH WAS AWARDED BY SO ME OTHER PERSON AND EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. 2. THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT OWN ANY INFRASTRUCTURE FACILI TIES OF ITS OWN WHICH IS A PRIME CONDITION FOR ALLOWANCE OF DED UCTION U/S 80IA(4) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FULFIL LED THE PRIME CONDITIONS LAID DOWN FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U /S 80IA(4) OF THE I.T. ACT THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S 80IA(4) OF RS.66,53,384/- . ITA NO.1593/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 4 3. THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A ) WHO HAS DELETED THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. THE REVENUE IS IN AP PEAL BEFORE US. 4.. THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF AO AND SUBMIT TED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY DELETED THE ADDITION. THEREF ORE, THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE AO BE RE STORED 5 . ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. AR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). SHE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NOS. 2 902/AHD/2008 FOR AY 2005-06 AND OTHERS DATED 30/4/2012. SHE PLAC ED ON RECORD A COPY OF THE TRIBUNALS ORDER IN ITA NO.2902/AHD/2 008 FOR AY 2005-06 AND OTHERS. 6. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GOIN G THROUGH THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION. WE FIND THAT THE ISSU E HAS BEEN ITA NO.1593/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 5 DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 30/04/2012 WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS:- 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AT SOME LENGTH. WE HAVE PERUSED THE COMPILATION FILED, IN THE LIGHT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. S ECTION 80IA WAS SUBJECT TO A CHANGE ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS IN THE PAST, HOWEVER FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION,I.E.A.Y.2005-06, THE SECTION SUBSTITUTED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2001 W. E.F. 1/4/2002 IS APPLICABLE. THIS SECTION PRESCRIBES THAT IN RESPECT OF PROFITS AND G AINS FROM AN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING ENGAGED IN INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT; A DEDUCTION OF AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO 100% OF THE PROFITS SHALL BE ALLOWED. SECTION 80IA(4) PRESCRIBE S THAT AN ENTERPRISE CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF (I) DEVELOPING OR (II) OPERATING AND MA INTAINING OR (III) DEVELOPING, OPERATING AND MAINTAINING ANY INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY SHALL Q UALIFY FOR THE DEDUCTION. THIS SUB- SECTION SAYS THAT THE ENTERPRISE HAS TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE GOVERNMENT, EITHER CENTRAL OR STATE, FOR DEVELOPING OR OPERATIN G AND MAINTENANCE OR DEVELOPING, OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE OF A NEW INFRASTRUCTURE F ACILITY AND THAT IT HAS BEEN STARTED ON OR AFTER FIRST DAY OF APRIL-1995, AS ALSO OWNED BY A COMPANY REGISTERED IN INDIA OR BY CONSORTIUM OF SUCH COMPANIES. THROUGH AN EXPLANATIO N, ANNEXED TO THE SAID SECTION; INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY IS DEFINED AS ROAD, BRIDG E, RAIL SYSTEM, HIGH-WAY PROJECT, IRRIGATION PRODUCT, SEWERAGE SYSTEM OR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM. WITH THESE SUBMISSIONS OF LEGAL REQUIREMENT, OUR ATTENTION HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEVELOPED THE INFRASTRUCTURE MEANT FOR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM. THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL UDAIPUR (RAJASTHAN) DATED 15/07/2004. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO ENTERED INTO AN ANOTHER AGREEMENT WITH SURAT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION DATED 14/11/2002. WE HAVE EXAMINED BOTH THE AGREEMENTS. UNDISPUTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN REF ERRED AS A CONTRACTOR IN THE AGREEMENT DATED 15/07/2004. HOWEVER, IT WAS NOT SO IN THE AGREEMENT DATED 14/11/2002 EXECUTED WITH SURAT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION. BE THAT AS IT WAS, MERELY MENTIONING THE ASSESSEE AS CONTRACTOR THE EXACT NATURE OF THE EX ECUTION OF THE WORK DO NOT ALTER. RATHER, THIS CONTROVERSY HAS BEEN RESOLVED BY RESPE CTED CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF PATEL ENGINEERING LTD. 94 ITD 411(MUM.)CITED-SUPRA. WE ARE CONVINCED WITH THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD.AR THAT A CONTRACTOR CAN ALSO BE A DEVELOPER. IN THIS CONTEXT, OUR ATTENTION HAS BEEN DRAWN ON A LATEST DECISION OF HO NBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT PRONOUNCED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RADHE DEVELOPERS (2012)341 I TR 403 (GUJ.), WHEREIN THE ITA NOS.2902,3077-08,1798-09,934, 1194-10, 1596-11 AND CO 177-11 (ASSESSEES APPEALS & REVENUES APPEALS) [ EN-VISION ENVIRO ENGINEERS P .LTD. VS. DCIT ] - 11 - ISSUE WAS IN RESPECT OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) OF IT AC T AND THE ASSESSEE HAPPENED TO BE DEVELOPER-CUM-BUILDING CONTRACTOR. THE HONBLE CO URT HAS HELD THAT THE SAID DEVELOPER HAD TO MAKE THE CONSTRUCTION AND TO ENGAGE LABOUR O N CONTRACT, THEREFORE THE TERM DEVELOPER HAS TO BE UNDERSTOOD IN COMMON PARLANCE AS WELL AS IN LEGAL SENSE. THE HONBLE COURT HAS TAKEN THE HELP OF WEBSTERS- ENCYC LOPEDIA AND OTHER DICTIONARIES AND THEREUPON OPINED THAT THE TERM DEVELOPER CARRIES A MUCH WIDER CONNOTATION. AS FAR AS THE AGREEMENT WITH SURAT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION IS C ONCERNED, THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN REFERRED AS PARTY OF THE FIRST PART, HENCE NO SER OUS OBJECTION HAS BEEN RAISED BY THE REVENUE. ON ACCOUNT OF THESE REASONS AND FOLLOWING THE VIEW EXPRESSED BY THE HONBLE ITA NO.1593/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 6 COURT AS ALSO CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF THE WORK EX ECUTED BY THIS ASSESSEE, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO AGREE WITH THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACTED MERELY AS A CONTRACTOR, RATHER, WE HEREBY HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACTED AS A DE VELOPER. HERE-IN-BELOW ARE FEW OTHER REASONS HEREBY ASSIGNED BY US. 7.1. AS PER THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT, THE ASSESSE E HAS TO SET UP BIOMEDICAL WASTE TREATMENT FACILITY. ONE OF THE CLAUSES [CLAUSE-(II )] PRESCRIBES THAT THE PLANT SHALL BE SET UP AT ASSESSEES OWN COST AT THE SITE. FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE SAID FACILITY LOCAL BODY HAS PROVIDE LAND ONLY. THEREAFTER, CLA USE(III) SAYS THAT THE SAID FACILITY SHALL BE OPERATED WITHOUT ANY HINDRANCE DURING THE TERM O F LEASE FOR THIRTY YEARS. ONLY A TOKEN RE.1/- IS CHARGED AS LEASE AMOUNT. WE HAVE ALSO NOT ED THAT VIDE CLAUSE(V) THE COLLECTOR IS AUTHORIZED TO OBSERVE THE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE FACILITY. BUT IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL HAS FINANCED THE SAID PR OJECT. THIS CLAUSE IS MEANT ONLY FOR SUPERVISION OF THE OPERATION & MAINTENANCE. THEREFO RE, ACCORDING TO US, IT IS A FAR FETCHED PROPOSITION ON THE PART OF THE REVENUE TO ARGUE THA T THE ENTIRE PROJECT HAS BEEN DEVELOPED BY THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION THROUGH A CONTRACTOR I .E. THE ASSESSEE. 7.2. AS FAR AS THE OBJECTIONS OF THE REVENUE IS CON CERNED, THE CLAUSES ARE VERY CLEAR THAT THE BIO-MEDICAL WASTE SHALL BE COLLECTED AND TRANSF ERRED BY THE ASSESSEE UPTO THE PLANT. FOR THIS PURPOSE, THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE PAID FOR TH E TREATMENT AND THE DISPOSAL OF THE WASTE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TENDER AND LETTER OF INDENT (LOI). FOR THAT PURPOSE, A PROVISION HAS BEEN MADE FOR THE EXECUTION OF A SEPARATE AGREE MENT WITH THE MEDICAL COLLEGE. ONE OF THE CLAUSES SAYS THAT THE TREATED BIO-MEDICAL WA STE SHALL BE DISPOSED-OFF ALONG WITH OTHER MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE. THE TRANSPORTATION OF THE WASTE IS TO BE CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE. THE CLAUSES HAVE ALSO PROVIDED THAT FOR C OLLECTION, TRANSPORTATION, STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF BIO-MEDICAL WASTE AFTER TREATMENT WITHI N SPECIFIED TIME SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESS EE HAS BEEN ENTITLED TO USE OR SALE ANY OF THE BIO-PRODUCT. 7.3. WE HAVE ALSO EXAMINED THE OTHER AGREEMENT DATE D 14/11/2002 WHICH IN ITS NOMENCLATURE SAYS AGREEMENT FOR TREATMENT OF BIO M EDIAL WASTE ON BOOT (BUILD, OWN, OPERATOR, TRANSFER) BASIS BETWEEN SURAT MUNICI PAL CORPORATION AND EN-VISION ENVIRO ENGINEERS PVT.LTD. FOR THE REMOVAL AND DISP OSAL OF REFUSE, RUBBISH AND GARBAGE OF VARIOUS HOSPITALS, CLINICS, NURSING HOMES IN SUR AT, IT WAS REQUIRED BY THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION TO HANDLE AND MANAGE THE SAME, HENCE, I NVITED BOOT TENDER. THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED AND ON A TOKEN RENT OF RE.1/- PER SQUAR E METER PER ANNUM, THE SAID AGREEMENT WAS ENTERED INTO FOR SEVEN YEARS. THE ASSESSEE IS T O MAKE THE CONSTRUCTION ON THE LAND AS PER THE APPROVED PLANS. THE ASSESSEE HAS TO INSTALL NECESSARY EQUIPMENT AND MACHINERY. ONE OF THE CLAUSES IS VERY CLEAR THAT EN-VISION SH ALL BEAR ALL THE EXPENSES FOR PUTTING UP THE SAID PLAN. THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO CHARGE FOR TREATMENT OF WASTE PER KG. AS FIXED BY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION FROM TIME TO TIME. ONE OF THE CLAUSES, THUS IS CLEAR THAT THE RATE SHALL BE AS PER THE QUOTATIONS AGREED UPON. ON TERM INATION OF AGREEMENT, THE PROJECT IS TO BE TAKEN OVER. AT THIS JUNCTURE, LD.AR HAS ALSO MEN TIONED THE CHANGE IN THE STATUTE THROUGH WHICH ONE OF THE CONDITION OF TRANSFER OF T HE INFRASTRUCTURE BACK TO THE GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN WAIVED OF. ITA NO.1593/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 7 8. AS FAR AS THE TDS CERTIFICATES ARE CONCERNED, WE HAVE EXAMINED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED BILLS AND THE TDS CERTIFICATES ARE ISSUED BY THE CORPORATION FOR BIO-MEDICAL WASTE TREATMENT (CHARGES) AND FOR THE SERVICES RENDERED T O VARIOUS HOSPITALS AND THE AMOUNT OF BILL REPRESENTED PAYMENT ATTRIBUTABLE TO WASTE TREA TMENT AND NOT IN RESPECT OF ANY CONSTRUCTION OR DEVELOPMENT. WE HAVE ALSO SEEN THE INVOICES AND THE DESCRIPTION THEREIN WAS ALSO BIO-MEDICAL WASTE TREATMENT FACIL ITY. BECAUSE OF THIS REASON, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO ACCEPT THE ALLEGATION OF THE REVENU E DEPARTMENT THAT SINCE ON TDS CERTIFICATE THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN MENTIONED AS CON TRACTOR, THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ACTED AS A DEVELOPER. THESE TDS CERTIFICATES EVIDENTLY WERE NOT IN RESPECT OF THE DEVELOPING OR MAINTAINING OR OPERATING OR CONSTRUCT ION OF THE SAID INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY BUT ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE CHARGES FOR TREATMENT OF WASTE. 8.1. AS FAR AS THE BALANCE-SHEETS ARE CONCERNED, IT HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED THAT YEAR-WISE THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE SAID INFRASTRUCTURE AS FIXED ASSETS. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE INVESTMENT IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND WE HAVE BEEN INFORMED THAT BECAUSE OF THE SAID REASON THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEPRECIATION W HICH WAS ALSO ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT. 8.2. WITH THIS FACTUAL B ACKGROUND, WE HAVE PERUSED THE DECISION OF ABG HEAVY INDUSTRIES LTD. 322 ITR 323(B OM.), WHEREIN SCOPE OF THE PROVISION OF SECTION 80IA HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED AND H ELD AS UNDER:- THE OBLIGATIONS WHICH HAD BEEN ASSUMED BY THE ASS ESSEE UNDER THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT WERE OBLIGATIONS INVOLVING THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN IN FRASTRUCTURE FACILITY. SECTION 80-IA OF THE ACT ESSENTIALLY CONTEMPLATED A DEDUCTION IN A S ITUATION WHERE AN ENTERPRISE CARRIED ON THE BUSINESS OF DEVELOPING, MAINTAINING AND OPERATI NG AN INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY. A PORT WAS DEFINED TO BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF TH E EXPRESSION INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY. THE OBLIGATIONS WHICH THE ASSESSEE ASSUMED UNDER TH E TERMS OF THE CONTRACT WERE NOT MERELY FOR SUPPLY AND INSTALLATION OF THE CRANES, B UT INVOLVED A CONTINUOUS OBLIGATION RIGHT FROM THE SUPPLY OF THE CRANES TO THE INSTALLA TION, TESTING, COMMISSIONING, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE CRANES FOR A TERM OF TEN YEA RS AFTER WHICH THE CRANES WERE TO VEST IN JNPT FREE OF COST. AN ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE TO D EVELOP THE ENTIRE PORT IN ORDER TO QUALIFY FOR A DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA. THE CON DITION OF A CERTIFICATE FROM THE PORT AUTHORITY WAS FULFILLED AND JNPT CERTIFIED THAT THE FACILITY PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE PORT. THE AA DEVELOPED THE FACILITY ON A BOLT BASIS UNDER THE CONTRACT WITH JNPT. ON THE FULFILMENT OF THE LEASE OF TEN YEARS, THERE WAS A VESTING IN THE JNPT FREE OF COST. THE FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HA D DEVELOPED THE INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY AND THAT IT WAS ENGAGED IN OPERATING THE CRANES WAS , THEREFORE, BASED ON THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO MAINTAI NING THE CRANES WAS NOT DISPUTED. THE FACILITY WAS COMMENCED AFTER APRIL, 1995. THE ASSES SEE WAS ENTITLED TO THE SPECIAL DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IA. 9. UNDER THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE AND AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE LEGAL PROVISIONS IN THE LIGHT OF THE CASE LAW CITED, WE HEREBY HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IA(4) OF IT ACT. IN THE RESULT, WE HEREBY CONFIRM THE FINDINGS OF LD.CIT(A) AND DISMIS S THE GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE. SINCE FOR REST OF THE A.YS. 2004-05, 2006-07 & 2007-08, T HE ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS ITA NO.1593/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 8 IDENTICAL (INCLUDING AY 2005-06), THEREFORE ON THE SAME LINES, GROUNDS ARE DISMISSED. REVENUES APPEALS FOR ALL THE FOUR YEARS ARE HEREBY DISMISSED. FACTS BEING SIMILAR, FOLLOWING THE ABOVE REASONING, WE CONCUR WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.66,53.384/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION CLAIME D U/S 80IA(4) OF THE ACT. THE SAME IS UPHELD. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 10 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2015 SD/- SD/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMB ER DATED :_10/06/2015. MAHATA/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY.REGISTRAR,ITAT, AHMEDABAD ITA NO.1593/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 9 1. DATE OF DICTATION: 2/62015 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE T HE DICTATING MEMBER: 9/6/2015 OTHER MEMBER: 3. DATE ON WHICH APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P. S./P.S.: 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT: __________ 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE S R. P.S./P.S.: 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK:1 1/06/2015 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK: 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER: 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER: