The ITO, Ward-9(1), Ahmedabad V. M/s. N.R. Developers, Ahmedabad

ITA 1872/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 85691 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-02-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 09-02-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 27-07-2011
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DINESH SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: AARTI N SHAH
• Section: 80IB

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO . 1872 /AHD/20 1 1 A. Y. 200 8 - 0 9 ITO WARD - 9(1), AHMEDABAD. VS M/S. N.R. DEVELOPERS , PUSHPARAJ COMPLE S, NR. JASODANAGAR CHAR RASHTA, MAHEMDAVAD ROAD, VATVA, AHMEDABAD. PAN: AAFFN 7886E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI DINESH SINGH , SR. D.R. ASSESSEE(S) BY : S MT. A ARTI N. SHAH, A.R. / DATE OF HEARING : 09 / 0 2 /201 5 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 13 / 0 2 /201 5 / O R D E R PER MUKUL KUMAR SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS AN A PPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARISING FROM THE ORDER OF THE L E ARNED CIT (A) - XV , AHMEDABAD , DATED 26 . 05 .20 11 . THE GROUND S RAISED ARE AS UNDER : 1. THE ID. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (A) - XV, AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OF RS.59,03 ,910/ - U/S. 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. 2. THE ID. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (A) - XV, AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE FULFILLS THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) EVEN WHEN THE LAND WAS IN THE NAME OF SURAJ (GHODASAR) OWN ERS ASSOCIATION, WHICH IS A SEPARATE LEGAL ENTITY IN THE EYE OF LAW AND THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO THE PROJECT BY A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH THEM. THE ENTIRE RESPONSIBILITY TO EXECUTE THE HOUSING PROJECT AND ABIDE BY THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ITS APPROV AL RIGHT FROM THE INCEPTION OF THE PROJECT TILL ITS COMPLETION RESTS WITH THEM. ASSESSEE WAS JUST A CONTRACTOR OF THE LAND CONSTRUCTING 34 RESIDENTIAL BUNGALOWS (PUSHPARAJ BUNGALOWS) AND NOT A DEVELOPER. ITA NO. 1872 /AHD/201 1 ITO WARD - 9(1), AHMEDABAD VS. M/S. N.R. DEVELOPERS FOR A.Y. 200 8 - 09 - 2 - 2. FACTS IN BRIEF AS EMERGED FROM THE CORRESPO NDING ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S.143(3) DATED 25.11.2010 WERE THAT THE ASSESSEE - FIRM IS STATED TO BE IN THE BUSINESS OF DEVELOPMENT OF A HOUSING PROJECT. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN A PROFIT OF RS.59,03,907/ - WHICH WAS CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) OF IT A CT. THE AO S OBJECTION IN RESPECT OF SAID PROJECT WAS THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS PURCHASED BY AN A SSOCIATION AND BECAME OWNER. ACCORDING TO AO, THE LAND WAS PURCHASED ON 30 TH OF SEPTEMBER, 2003 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.99 LAC. HIS NEXT OBJECTION WAS TH AT THE SAID ASSOCIATION HAD APPLIED FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONSTRUCTION AND THE LOCAL AUTHORITY HAD GRANTED THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION PERMISSION OF THE PROJECT TO THE SAID ASSOCIATION , VIZ., SURAJ (GHODASAR) O WNERS A SSOCIATION. THE SAID PERMISSION WAS GRANTED ON 1 ST FEBRUARY, 2005 . I T WAS ALSO NOTED BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE SAID OWNER - ASSOCIATION DATED 11.10.2004. FACTS IN THIS REGARD WERE NARRATED BY THE AO VIDE PARAGRAPH 2.4 REPRODUCED BELOW: ASS ESSEE ENTERED INTO OR DEVELOPMENT AGREE MENT WITH SURAJ (GHODASAR) OWNERS ASSOCIATION ON 11.10.2004 AS PER THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT, (I) THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN POSSESSION OF THE LAND FO R CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSING UNITS AS PER THE PLAN, (II) THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED TO ENROLL PROSPECTIVE BUYERS AS THE MEMBERS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION/SOCIETY, (III) THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED TO COLLECT THE CONSIDERATION FOR LAND AS WELL AS SUPER - STRUCTURE FROM THE BUYERS ON, BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION (IV) THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED TO RETAIN THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED FOR CONSTRUCTION AND CHARGE THE LAND COST TO THE ASSOCIATION. IN OTHER WORDS THE ASSOCIATION WAS FORMED FOR GROUP HOUSING OF THE MEMBERS AND WAS SUPPOSED TO CONSTRUCT AND TRANSFER THE HOUSES TO THE MEMBERS, (V) ACCORDING TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT , SINCE THE ASSOCIATION HAD NO EXPERIENCE OF CONSTRUCTION, THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED TO CONSTRUCT THE HOUSES ON BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION AS PER THE TERMS NARRATED IN THE AGREEMENT ACCORDING TO THE APPROVED PLAN OF THE ASSOCIATION. ITA NO. 1872 /AHD/201 1 ITO WARD - 9(1), AHMEDABAD VS. M/S. N.R. DEVELOPERS FOR A.Y. 200 8 - 09 - 3 - 2.1 IN SHORT , THE AO S OBJECTION WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT THE OWNER OF THE LAND AND THAT THE PERMISSION WAS ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE SAID ASSOCIATION ; THEREFORE, NOT ENTITLED FOR THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) . THE AO HAS DISCUSSED FEW CASE LAWS IN THE LIGHT OF THE PROVISIONS OF IT ACT AND THEREUPON SUMMED UP THE CONCLUSION AS PER THE FOLLOWINGS POINTS. 2.21 TO SUM UP - (A) THE ASSOCIATION IS A LEGAL ENTITY AND IT ACQUIRED THE LAND AND HAS TO BE RECOGNIZED AS THE O WNER OF THE LAND. (B) THE CHAIRMAN OF THE ASSOCIATION GOT THE PLAN FOR THE HOUSING PROJECT APPROVED FROM THE LOCAL AUTHORITY AS OWNER OF THE LAND ON WHICH THE PROJECT WAS TO COME UP. (C) IT IS IMMATERIAL WHETHER THE ASSESSEE APPROACHED THE ASSOCIATION O R THE ASSOCIATION APPROACHED THE ASSESSEE FOR CONSTRUCTION. (D) THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE ASSOCIATION IS THE PRINCIPAL AND THE ASSESSEE IS A CONTRACTOR SATISFYING ALL THE INGREDIENTS OF THE CONTRACT AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. (E) THEREFORE, IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE IS A MERE BUILDER WHO HAS ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE ASSOCIATION FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSING PROJECT AS PER THE APPROVAL OBTAINED BY THE ASSOCIATION FOR CONSTRUCTION ON THE LAND OWNED BY THE ASSOCIATION. (F) IT THEREFORE FOLLOWS T HAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT THE DEVELOPER OF THE PROJECT AS IT IS NOT THE DESIGNER, CREATOR AND OWNER OF THE HOUSING PROJECT. (G) THEREFORE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE IS MERE BUILDER AND DOES NOT SATISFY THE PRIMARY REQUIREMENT OF THE SECTION THAT THE ASSE SSEE MUST DEVELOP AND BUILD A HOUSING PROJECT. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD SIMPLY DONE THE WORK OF CIVIL CONSTRUCTION RELATED TO THE HOUSING PROJECT (AS PER THE AGREEMENT ENTERED WITH THE ASSO CI ATION) THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 IB(10) AS PER THE AMENDMENT BROUGHT TO THE SECTION 80IB BY THE FINANCE ACT 2009 W.E.F . 1.4.2001 WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW. 2.2 SINCE, THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) WAS DENIED; THEREFORE, THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 3. LEARNED CIT(A) HAS EXAMINED THE EVIDENCES AND FACTS AND THEREUPON DISCUSSED THE DECISION OF M/S. SHAKTI CORPORATION AND HELD AS UNDER: 5. IT IS SEEN THAT THE AO HAS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT FULFILL ANY OF THE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN SE CTION 801B(10) FROM CLAUSE (A) TO (D) WITH ITA NO. 1872 /AHD/201 1 ITO WARD - 9(1), AHMEDABAD VS. M/S. N.R. DEVELOPERS FOR A.Y. 200 8 - 09 - 4 - RESPECT TO THE APPROVALS FROM THE LOCAL AUTHORITY, COMPLETION OF PROJECT WITHIN THE SPECIFIED TIME LIMITS, ONE ACRE OF LAND CONDITION, 1500 SQ.FT. BUILT UP AREA CONDITION OF EACH UNIT IN THE PROJECT AND THAT OF PE RCENTAGE OF CONSTRUCTION FOR COMMERCIAL USE. HIS OBJECTION IS THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT THE OWNER OF THE LAND. THIS OBJECTION OF THE AO HAS TO BE SEEN IN THE LIGHT OF THE TESTS LAID DOWN BY HON'BLE ITAT BENCH A AHMEDABAD DECISION IN THE CASE OF M/S.SHAKTI CORPORATION, BARODA IN I TANO.1503/AHD/2008 IN AY 2005 - 0 6 WHEREIN HON'BLE ITAT HAS HELD THAT WHERE THE APPELLANT IS FOUND HAVING PRACTICALLY PURCHASED THE LAND AND HAS BORNE THE RISK OF DEVELOPMENT DEDUCTION SHOULD BE ALLOWED. HERE THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN FO UND FULFILLING THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND HAS ALSO BEEN FOUND MEETING THE TESTS LAID DOWN IN HON'BLE ITAT BENCH A AHMEDABAD DECISION IN THE CASE OF M/S.SHAKTI CORPORATION, BARODA IN ITA NO.L503/AHD/2008 IN A . Y . 2 005 - 06 AS IT HAD PRACTICALLY PURCHASED THE LAND AS CLEAR FROM THE P & L ACCOUNT WHERE RS.92,61,613 HAS BEEN DEBITED AS LAND COST AND CHEQUE PAYMENTS MADE TO SURAJ (GHODASAR) OWNERS ASSOCIATION FROM ITS BANK ACCOUNT AND IT HAD BORNE THE ENTIRE COST AND RISK OF DEVELOPING THE PROJECT AS CLEAR FROM CLAUSE 15A OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, WHICH CLEARLY STATES THAT THE PROFIT WAS TO BE OF THE APPELLANT, THEREFORE IN MY VIEW IT IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) AND THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE SAME. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED NOW THE REVENUE IS BEFORE US. FROM THE SIDE OF THE REVENUE, LEARNED SR.D.R., MR. DINESH SINGH, HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FINDINGS OF THE AO AND ARGUED THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS NEITHER PRACTICALLY NOR THEORETICALLY PURCHASED BY THE AS SESSEE. IN FACT, THE LAND WAS PURCHASED BY A SEPARATE LEGAL ENTITY. THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AND OTHER EXPENSES WERE COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE MEMBERS. THE FUNDS BEING COLLECTED FROM THE MEMBERS ; HENCE , THERE WAS NO RISK UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE . BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE LEGAL PROPOSITION AS HELD BY THE AO , LEARNED DR HAS PLEADED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY ALLOWED THE CLAIMED. 5. FROM THE SIDE OF THE RESPONDENT - ASSESSEE, LEARNED AR , SMT. AARTI N. SHAH HAS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND FILED A COMPILATION CONTAINING THE A UDIT R EPORT ALONG WITH FORM 10CCB FILED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, COPY OF THE AGREEMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE HOUSING ITA NO. 1872 /AHD/201 1 ITO WARD - 9(1), AHMEDABAD VS. M/S. N.R. DEVELOPERS FOR A.Y. 200 8 - 09 - 5 - PROJECT DATED 11.10.2004, CERTIFI ED COPY OF DEVELOPMENT PERMISSION , APPROVED PLAN OF THE HOU SING PROJECT, THE DECISION OF RADHEY DEVELOPERS, 341 ITR 403 (GUJ.) AND FEW CASE LAWS AS LISTED BELOW: 1. CIT VS MAHADEV DEVELOPERS , 214TAXMAN 130 2. CITVS PRARTHANA DEVELOPER , S 32 TAXMANN.COM 336 3. CIT VS VISHAL CONSTRUCTION , 35 TAXMANN.COM 182 4. CIT V S RAM CONSTRUCTION , 215 TAXMAN 17 5. NIKHIL ASSOCIATES VS. ITO , 45 TAXMANN.COM 278 6. CIT VS. SWATI ASSOCIATES , 146 TAXMANN.COM 53 (GUJHC) 7. CIT VS. SAHAJANAND ASSOCIATES , 44 TAXMANN.COM 458(GUJ) 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AT SOME LENGTH. FACTS OF T HE CASE HAVE REVEALED THAT A LAND SITUATED AT GHODASAR, DISTRICT AHMEDABAD ADMEASURING 7312.55 SQ. MTR. W AS IN POSSESSION OF SURAJ (GHODASAR) O WNERS A SSOCIATION, A NON TRADING CORPORATION (NTC) REQUIRED TO BE DEVELOPED; HENCE , A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WAS E XECUTED ON 11 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2014 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A HOUSING PROJECT WITH THE ASSESSEE, NAMELY, M/S. N.R. DEVELOPERS. WE HAVE BEEN INFORMED THAT AS PER THE SAID AGREEMENT , THE PROJECT IN THE NAME OF PUSHPRAJ BUNGALOWS WAS TO BE CONSTRUCTED AND THE DEVELOPER WAS REQUIRED TO CONSTRUCT THE BUNGALOWS ALONG WITH OTHER BASIC AMENITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE, ROADS ELECTRICITY LIGHTS, DRAINAGE, ETC. THE BUILDING UNITS WERE TO BE CONSTRUCTED FOR THE USE OF THE MEMBER OF THAT SOCIETY. SOME OF THE CLAUSES OF THE AGREEMENT WHICH WERE HIGHLIGHTED BEFORE US WERE AS UNDER: 3. ALL PLANS, ELEVATIONS, SECTIONS AND DRAWINGS OF ERECTIONS AND PREMISES TO BE CREATED AS A PART OF DEVELOPMENT OF THE SAID PROPERTY HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AUTH ORITY AND THE SPECIFICATION/S OF THE CONSTRUCTION AND ALL THE BUILDING MATERIALS TO BE USED THEREIN SHALL BE DECIDED/ARRANGED BY THE DEVELOPER /BUILDER AT ITS OWN COST AND EXPENSES AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SAID PROPERTY SHALL BE MADE STRICTLY IN ACCORDANC E WITH THE PLANS DULY SANCTIONED BY THE SAID AUTHORITY AND SUBJECT TO THE LAW FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE. 4. THE DEVELOPER/BUILDER SHALL BE ENTITLED TO DEVELOP THE SAID PROPERTY EITHER ALONE OR JOINTLY WITH OTHER OR OTHERS OR THROUGH ANY CONTRACTOR AS THE ITA NO. 1872 /AHD/201 1 ITO WARD - 9(1), AHMEDABAD VS. M/S. N.R. DEVELOPERS FOR A.Y. 200 8 - 09 - 6 - DEVELOPER/BUILDER MAY DEEM FIT AND PROPER. HOWEVER, FOR ALL PURPOSES OF THE NTC, THE DEVELOPER/BUILDER ALONE SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL AND EVERY ACTS DONE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SAID PROPERTY . 7. FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS AGREEMENT AND FOR TH E DEVELOPMENT OF THE SAID PROPERTY, THE DEVELOPER/BUILDER SHALL BE ENTITLED TO ENGAGE ITS COST AND EXPENSES, ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS, SUPERVISORS CONTRACTORS OR ANY OTHER PERSONS IT MAY DEEM FIT AND PROPER. 8. ALL NECESSARY FINANCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF D EVELOPMENT / CONSTRUCTION OF THE SAID PROPERTY SHALL BE ARRANGED BY THE DEVELOPER/BUILDER HERAUNDER. IT HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY AGREED BY AND BETWEEN THE PARTIES HERETO THAT IT SHALL BE THE LIABILITY AND RESPONSIBILITY OF THE DEVELOPER/BUILDER HEREIN TO MAKE THE PAYMENT INCLUDING INTEREST THEREON IF ANY TO THE PERSON/S FROM WHOM SUCH FINANCE IS AVAILED OR PROVIDED, HOWEVER THE NTC SHALL RENDER ALL CO - OPERATION FOR, SUCH PURPOSE. 9. IT HAS BEEN AGREED THAT ALL ACTS, DEEDS AND THINGS DONE UNDER THIS AGREEMENT OR WITH RESPECT TO THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE SAID PROPERTY SHALL BE THE ABSOLUTE RESPONSIBILITY AND LIABILITY OF THE DEVELOPER/BUILDER HEREIN AND THE DEVE1OPER/ BUILDER HEREIN ALONE SHALL BE LIABLE AND/OR RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SAME AND THE DEVE LOPER/BUILDER HEREBY AGREES TO KEEP I NDEMNIF IED THE NT C AGAINST ANY LIABILITY, LOSS OR DAMAGE, ARISING THEREFROM. 6.1 AS PER CLAUSE 15 OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT , THE DEVELOPER WAS ENTITLED FOR THE PROFIT OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE GROSS AMOUNT REC EIVED FROM THE MEMBERS TOWARDS CONSTRUCTION OF BUNGALOWS (+) DEVELOPMENT OF BASIC COMMON INFRASTRUCTURE AMENITIES AND THE TOTAL COST INCURRED BY THE DEVELOPER TOWARDS BUILDING MATERIAL, LABOUR, CONSTRUCTION, INTEREST, OTHER CHARGES. MEANING THEREBY THE DEV ELOPER WAS REQUIRED TO BEAR ALL COSTS AND EXPENDITURE FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE SCHEME. IN ONE OF THE CLAUSE, IT WAS AGREED UPON THAT ALL THE FINANCES FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE ARRANGED BY THE SAID DEVELOPER. WITH THIS BACKGROUND OF THE AGRE EMENT , OUR ATTENTION HAS BEEN DRAWN ON THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE SOCIETY AS MAINTAINED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT ON 12 TH OF FEBRUARY, 2005 A SUM OF RS.10 LAC ITA NO. 1872 /AHD/201 1 ITO WARD - 9(1), AHMEDABAD VS. M/S. N.R. DEVELOPERS FOR A.Y. 200 8 - 09 - 7 - WAS PAID TO THE SOCIETY THROUGH CHEQUE OF BANK OF INDIA. THEREA FTER REGULAR PAYMENTS WERE MADE ; THAT TOO THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES AND ON 30 TH MARCH, 2008 BY A JV ENTRY UNDER L AND A CCOUNT A SUM OF RS.92,61,613/ - WAS TRANSFERRED. LEARNED AR HAS ALSO DRAWN OUR ATTENTION ON ONE OF THE SCHEDULE OF THE BALANCE SHEET TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE COST OF LAND WAS REFLECTED IN THE ACCOUNT. LEARNED AR HAS ALSO INFORMED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ARRANGED THE FINANCES BUT SIMULTANEOUSLY ALSO RECEIVED THE DEVELOPMENT CHARGES FROM THE MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY. LEARNED AR HAS ALSO PLEADE D THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A DEVELOPER AND A CONTRACTOR WHICH WAS ELABORATELY EXPLAINED TO LEARNED CIT(A) WHO HAS CONSIDERED THOSE LEGAL ASPECT IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. WE HAVE NOTED THAT IN THE CASE OF RADHEY DEVELOPERS, 341 I TR 403 (GUJARAT) THE HON BLE COURT HAS OPINED THAT OWN ERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY IS NOT THE ONLY CONDITION PRECEDENT , ESPECIALLY UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN AN AGREEMENT IS EXECUTED TO DEVELOP A PROPERTY AND THE DEVELOPER HAS FULL AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THE PRO JECT BUT SIDE BY SIDE ALSO UNDERTAKEN THE RISK AS WELL AS THE RESPONSIBILITIES. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE HIGH COURT IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, WE HEREBY UPHOLD THE VIEW TAKEN BY LEARNED CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE GRO UND OF THE REVENUE. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. SD/ - SD/ - (ANIL CHATURVEDI ) ( MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 13 / 0 2 / 20 1 5 PRABHAT KR. KESARWANI , SR. P . S . / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : ITA NO. 1872 /AHD/201 1 ITO WARD - 9(1), AHMEDABAD VS. M/S. N.R. DEVELOPERS FOR A.Y. 200 8 - 09 - 8 - 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - III, AHMEDABAD 5. , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER, / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD