DCIT-AKOLA-CIRCLE, , Akola V. SHRI HARMITSINGH BHAGWANSINGH SETHI, Nagpur

ITA 266/NAG/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9661 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-06-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 30-05-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 09-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A R NINAWE
• Keywords: Reason to believe
• Section: 143(3); 194C; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI P.K. BANSAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.266/NAG./2014 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200910 ) DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AKOLA CIRCLE, AKOLA APPELLANT V/S SHRI HARMITSINGH BHAGWANSINGH SETHI 48, GOVT. PRESS COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY, JAITALA WEEKLY BAZAR TRIMURTY NAGAR, NAGPUR 440 001 PAN AFFPS6376H .... RESPONDENT ITA NO.526/NAG./2014 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200708 ) ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AKOLA CIRCLE, AKOLA APPELLANT V/S SHRI HARMITSINGH BHAGWANSINGH SETHI 48, GOVT. PRESS COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY, JAITALA WEEKLY BAZAR TRIMURTY NAGAR, NAGPUR 440 001 PAN AFFPS6376H .... RESPONDENT 2 SHRI HARMITSINGH BHAGWANSINGH SETHI ITA NO.527/NAG./2014 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 201011 ) ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AKOLA CIRCLE, AKOLA APPELLANT V/S SHRI HARMITSINGH BHAGWANSINGH SETHI 48, GOVT. PRESS COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY, JAITALA WEEKLY BAZAR TRIMURTY NAGAR, NAGPUR 440 001 PAN AFFPS6376H .... RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SANJAY THAKKAR REVENUE BY : SHRI A.R. NINAWE DATE OF HEARING 28.06.2017 DATE OF ORDER 30.06 .2017 O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, J.M. THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE ABOVE MENTIONED APPEALS A GAINST DIFFERENT ORDERS PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)-I, NAGPUR, RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR2007-08, 2009-10 AND 2010-11. ITA NO.526/NAG./2014 A.Y. 2007-08 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACTS BROUGHT OUT BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH ESTABLISHED THAT THE PROJECT S COMPLETED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR MESDCL ARE WORKS CONTRACT AND NOT CONTRACT FOR SALE; 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION U/S.80IA(4) OF THE ACT IN NOT 3 SHRI HARMITSINGH BHAGWANSINGH SETHI APPRECIATING THAT THE RATIO OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE ITAT MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S. INDIA HUME PIPE CO., LTD. IN ITA NO.5172/MUM/2008 DT. 29-07-2011 FOR A.Y.2004-05 WHE REIN THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF STATE OF A.P. V/S KONE ELE VATORS INDIA PVT. LTD. 3SCC 389(2005) RELIED UPON BY THE CIT(APPEALS) FOR GRANTING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO DISCUSSED, IS SQUAR ELY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 26 TH OCTOBER 2006, DECLARING GROSS INCOME TO THE TUNE O F ` 20,53,014 AND SHOWN HIS NET INCOME TO THE TUNE OF ` 5,68,210, AFTER CLAIMING CHAPTER-VIA DEDUCTION OF ` 14,84,804, WHICH INCLUDES DEDUCTION OF ` 13,86,740 UNDER SECTION 80IA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT ). THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SHOWN AGRICULTURAL INCOME TO THE TUNE OF ` 1,38,680. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS PROCESSED ON 28 TH JANUARY 2008. THEREAFTER, THE CASE WAS RE-OPENED A FTER ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT ON THE FOLLOWING REASONS:- THE ASSESSMENT FOR A.Y. 200809 'THE ASSESSMENT FOR AY 2008-09 WAS SUBJECT MATTER O F THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX TAX ACT, 19 61. ON THE BASIS OF DETAILS FILED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THIS YEAR, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED TO BE ENGAGED IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURAL FACIL ITIES ON BEHALF OF MSEDCL. HOWEVER, IT IS FURTHER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS EXECUTING THE WORK AS A CONTRACTOR AS PER THE WORKS CONTRACT ENTERED INTO WITH MSEDCL FROM TIME TO TIME. EVEN TH E DEDUCTION U/S 194C OF THE I.T. ACT, IS DONE BY THE MSEDCL IN RESPECT OF THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THE ASSESSEE ON WHOSE BEHALF THE A SSESSEE HAS EXECUTED THE CONTRACTS AND DONE THE INSTALLATIO N OF THE INFRASTRUCTURAL FACILITIES. 4 SHRI HARMITSINGH BHAGWANSINGH SETHI AS PER THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 80IA INSERTED BY FINANCE ACT, 2007 AND FINANCE, ACT, 2009 WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFE CT FROM 01/04/2010, DEDUCTION U/S 80IA(4) IS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE UNDERTAKING WHICH IS ENGAGED IN THE INFRASTRUCTURAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE COURSE OF SECTION OF THE WORKS CONTRACT. THU S, IT IS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ERRONEOUSLY CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80IA(4) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. FOR THE ABOVE PROPOSITION, I ALSO RELY UPON THE MUM BAI ITAT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF THE INDIAN HUME PIPE CO. LT D., IN ITA NO.5172/MUM/2008 DATED 29/07/2011 WHEREIN THE HON'B LE ITAT IS SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES HAS HELD THAT DEDUCTION U/ S 80IA(4) IS NOT AVAILABLE TO A PERSON EXECUTING THE WORKS CONTRACT. FOR THE ABOVE REASONS, I HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THA T THE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX OF RS.13,86,740/- HAS ESCAPED ASS ESSMENT DUE TO INCORRECT CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IA(4) BY THE ASSESSEE.' 4. THEREAFTER, THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA(4) OF THE ACT OF ` 13,86,740, WAS DISALLOWED AND THE INCOME OF THE ASS ESSEE WAS ASSESSED TO THE TUNE OF ` 19,54,950. FEELING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (AP PEALS) WHO ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 80I A(4) OF THE ACT. AGAINST THE SAID ORDER, THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE P RESENT APPEAL BEFORE US. ISSUE NO.1 AND 2 5. THE ABOVE ISSUES ARE INTER-CONNECTED, THEREFORE, AR E BEING TAKEN UP TOGETHER FOR ADJUDICATION. IN FACT, THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF ` 13,86,740 BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) TREATING THE WORK OF THE ASSESSEE AS CONT RACT OF SALE UNDER SECTION 80A(4) OF THE ACT. BEFORE GOING FURTHER, WE DEEM IT FIT TO 5 SHRI HARMITSINGH BHAGWANSINGH SETHI REPRODUCE THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER ( APPEALS) ON THESE ISSUES. 9.0 ON CAREFUL EXAMINATION OF THE FACTS, IT IS SEE N THAT THE APPELLANT IS A CONTRACTOR FOR ELECTRICAL INFRASTRUC TURES. THE APPELLANT IS ENGAGED IN THE WORK OF DEVELOPING ELEC TRICAL DISTRIBUTION INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITIES AND ELECTRIC ITY DISTRIBUTION BY LAYING NETWORK OF HIGH TENSION ELECTRICAL LINES AND LOW TENSION ELECTRICAL-LINES. THE SCOPE OF WORK PERFORMED BY TH E APPELLANT IS; DESIGN, SHOCKTEST, TESTING & COMMISSIONING OF SUB TRANSMISSION, NEW TRANSMISSION LINES, NEW SUB-STATI ON EQUIPMENTS ETC. THE APPELLANT WAS AWARDED THE CONTR ACT BY MDEDCL PURSUANT TO SHORT LISTING OF TENDER BIDS AND AFTER ASCERTAINING THE EXPERTISE IN THE FIELD OF ELECTRIC AL WORK. THE LETTER DATED 27.06.2008 FOR AWARD OF CONTRACT STATE S 'THIS IS TO NOTIFY YOU THAT YOUR BID DATED 28.12.2007 AND LET. UNDER REF. NO. 03 FOR THE SUPPLY, TRANSPORT, CONSTRUCTION, ERECTIO N, TESTING AND COMMISSIONING OF HT/LT LINES, DISTRIBUTION TRANSFOR MER CENTRES (DTC), AGRICULTURAL PUMPS ENERGISATION AND OTHER AL LIED WORKS, INCLUDING A FIVE YEAR GUARANTEE (DEFECTS LIABILITY) PERIOD FOR WORKS UNDER THE 'AGRICULTURAL PUMPS ENERGISATION PROJECT' ON THE SINGLE POINT RESPONSIBILITY 'FULL TURNKEY' BASIS' UNDER BI D NUMBER SE/BHR/T/AG/07-08/T-35 FOR WORKS IN LAKHANDUR S/DN. , IN BHANDARA CIRCLE IS MODIFIED AS REQUESTED BY YOU FOR THE RATE AS QUOTED BY YOU AT PAR, VAT (4% ON MATERIAL) AND SERV ICE TAX (2% ON CONTRACT VALUE) EXTRA BUT TOTAL CONTRACT VAL UE LIMITED TO RS.150.00 LAKHS (RS.ONE HUNDREAD AND FIFTY LAKHS ON LY) INCLUSIVE OF ALL TAXES AS CORRECTED AND MODIFIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS IS HEREBY AWARDED TO YO U WITH ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS REMAIN SAME.' 9.1 THE 'TURN-KEY PROJECT WORK' EXECUTED BY THE APP ELLANT FOR MSEDCL CARRIES A GUARANTEE OF 3-5 YEARS PERIOD IN R ESPECT OF THE WHOLE PROJECT HANDED OVER TO MSEDCL, ON OWNERSHIP B ASIS, AFTER PAYMENT OF THE FULL CONTRACT AMOUNT. THUS, THE APPE LLANT HAS NOT DONE ANY SERVICE TO THE MSEDCL, EXCEPT PROVIDING A COMPLETED PROJECT IN WHICH MSEDCL HAD NO INTEREST AT ANY TIME , TILL IT WAS TRANSFERRED TO MSEDCL ON 'TURN-KEY BASIS', BEING A PROJECT READY TO USE, THE APPELLANT HAS INVESTED HIS OWN FUNDS, T HEREFORE, THE PROJECT WORK DONE BY THE APPELLANT ON TURN-KEY BAS IS' DOES NOT AMOUNT TO WORKS CONTRACT BUT AMOUNTS SALE. THE APPE LLANT HAS ALSO FILED A COPY OF SALES TAX RETURN FILED BY HIM IN RESPECT OF THE TURNKEY PROJECT WHEREIN THE SALE CONSIDERATION IS DULY FOUND REFLECTED. 6 SHRI HARMITSINGH BHAGWANSINGH SETHI 9.2 THUS, AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION, THE CUMU LATIVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE LIGHT OF GUIDELINES LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF STATE OF A.P. VS. KONE ELEVATORS INDIA PVT. LTD., THE PROJECTS COMPLETED BY THE APPE LLANT FOR MSEDCL ON TURN-KEY BASIS' ARE HELD TO BE IN THE NAT URE OF CONTRACT OF SALE' AND NOT AS WORKS CONTRACT'. THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT U/S 80IA(4), THEREFORE IS ALLOWED. HENCE, THESE GROUNDS ARE ALLOWED. 6. ON APPRAISAL OF THE ABOVE SAID FINDING, WE FIND THA T THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAS DECIDED THE MATTER OF CO NTROVERSY IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS GUIDELINE LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN STATE OF A.P. V/S KONE ELEVATORS I NDIA PVT. LTD., 3 SCC 389 (2005). THE NATURE OF THE WORK OF ASSESSEE HAS DULY BEEN EXPLAINED IN THE LETTER DATED 27 TH JUNE 2008, WHILE AWARDING THE CONTRACT BY MDEDCL. THE ASSESSEE GET THE WORK IN PU RSUANCE TO SHORT LISTING OF TENDER BIDS AND AFTER ASCERTAINING THE E XPERTISE IN THE FIELD OF ELECTRICAL WORK. THE NATURE OF WORK OF THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY BEEN TREATED AS CONTRACT OF SALE IN VIEW OF THE GUIDELIN ES SETTLED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN KONE ELEVATORS INDIA PVT. LTD. (SUPRA). AT THIS STAGE ALSO, THE FACTS ARE SAME. NO NEW LAW HAS BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE US TO DEVIATE FROM THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARN ED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ON THIS ISSUE. AT THIS STAGE, WE ALSO NOT ICED THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 HAS BE EN DECIDED IN ITA NO.115/NAG./2013 DATED 28 TH AUGUST 2015, BY THE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, IN WHICH THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE UND ER SECTION 80IA(4) HAS BEEN ALLOWED. IN VIEW OF THE SAID CIRCU MSTANCES, WE ARE OF 7 SHRI HARMITSINGH BHAGWANSINGH SETHI THE VIEW THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HA S PASSED THE ORDER JUDICIOUSLY AND CORRECTLY WHICH IS NOT REQUIR ED TO BE INTERFERED WITH AT THIS APPELLATE STAGE. HENCE, BOTH THE ISSUE S ARE DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. ISSUE NO.3 7. THIS ISSUE IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE ADJUDICATED 8. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.266/NAG./2014 A.Y. 2009-10 9. IN THIS APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWIN G GROUNDS:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE CI T(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACTS BROUGHT OUT BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH ESTABLISHED THAT THE PROJECT S COMPLETED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR MSEDCL ARE WORKS CONTRACT AND N OT CONTRACT FOR SALE; 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IA(4) OF THE ACT IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE RATIO OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE ITAT MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S INDIA HUME PIPE COL., LTD. IN ITA NO.5172/MUM/2008 DT.209.07.2011 FOR A.Y.2004-05 WHE REIN THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF STATE OF A.P. VS. KONE ELEV ATORS INDIA PVT. LTD., 3SCC 389(2005) RELIED UPON BY THE CIT(A) FOR GRANTING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO DISCUSSED IS SQUARELY APPL ICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S 80IA(4) OF THE ACT IN TAK ING NO COGNIZANCE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS VIOLAT ED THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 18BBB OF THE I.T. RULES 1962 R.W .S. 80IA(7) OF THE I.T.ACT, WHICH INDICATES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN RULE 18BBB(2); 8 SHRI HARMITSINGH BHAGWANSINGH SETHI 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE COST OF INDEX AS ON 01.04.1981 AT R S.60,000/- WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE FAI LED TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM REGARDING THE VALUE OF LAND AS ON 01.04.1981 WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE RATIO OF THE DEC ISIONS IN THE CASE OF NUND & SAMONTA CO. PVT. LTD. (78 ITR 268) A ND IN THE CASE OF INDIA LTD. (303 ITR 271) (MADRAS HIGH COURT ) WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT THE REASONABLENESS HAS TO BE PROVED BY TH E ASSESSEE AND NOT BY THE DEPARTMENT. 10. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE QUITE SIMILAR TO THE FACT S OF THE CASE IN ITA NO.526/NAG./2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20070 8. THERE IS NO NEED TO REPEAT THE SAME. ISSUE NO.1 TO 3 11. THESE ISSUES ARE QUITE SIMILAR WHICH HAS BEEN RAISE D BY THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.526/NAG./2014. ACCORDINGLY, THESE ISSUES ARE DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF THE FI NDINGS GIVEN WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE IN APPEAL IN ITA NO.526/NAG./201 4. ISSUE NO.4 12. UNDER THIS ISSUE, THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE DIS ALLOWANCE OF INDEX COST OF ` 60,000 AS ON 1 ST APRIL 1981. IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE ASSESSEE SOLD THE PLOT OF LAND FOR A SUM OF ` 4,60,001 AFTER CLAIMING INDEXED COST OF ` 3,49,000 AND DECLARED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF ` 1,10,810. THE ASSESSING OFFICER RAISED THE QUESTIO N ABOUT THE TREATING THE MARKET VALUE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE T O THE TUNE OF ` 9 SHRI HARMITSINGH BHAGWANSINGH SETHI 60,000. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THE ANCESTRAL HOUSE AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF VAL UE AS ON 1 ST APRIL 1981. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT TH E VALUE OF THE PLOT TO THE TUNE OF ` 60,000 IS ON HIGHER SIDE AS THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF ` 4,60,001, WORKS OUT TO 7.66 TIME MORE THAN THE VALUE ADOPTED ON 1 ST APRIL 1981. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE VALUE OUGHT TO BE TAKEN 20 TO 30 TIMES MORE THA N THE VALUE AS ON 1 ST APRIL 1981. THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT HAVING EVIDENCE, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASSESSED THE VALUE OF THE LAND TO THE TUNE OF ` 20,000 ON ESTIMATION BASIS AS ON 1 ST APRIL 1981 AND ACCORDINGLY COMPUTED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. THE LEARNED CO MMISSIONER (APPEALS) DELETED THE VALUATION OF LAND ON ESTIMATI ON BASIS. ON APPRAISAL OF THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED COMMISSION ER (APPEALS), WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT HAVING ANY MATERIAL TO ESTIMATE THE LAND VALUE TO THE TUNE OF ` 20,000 AS ON 1 ST APRIL 1981. NO MATERIAL OF ANY KIND WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISS IONER (APPEALS) BY THE REVENUE AND NOTHING WAS PRODUCED BEFORE US B Y THE REVENUE TO JUSTIFY THE ASSESSMENT OF THE VALUE OF LAND TO T HE TUNE OF ` 20,000 AS ON 1 ST APRIL 1981. SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED THE VALUE OF LAND TO THE TUNE OF ` 20,000 AS ON 1 ST AUGUST 1981, WITHOUT ANY MATERIAL, THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LE ARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION RAISED B Y THE ASSESSING 10 SHRI HARMITSINGH BHAGWANSINGH SETHI OFFICER. THE FACTS ARE NOT DISTINGUISHABLE AT THIS STAGE ALSO. ON APPRAISAL OF THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED COMMISSION ER (APPEALS), WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPE ALS) HAS PASSED THE ORDER JUDICIOUSLY AND CORRECTLY WHICH IS NOT RE QUIRED TO BE INTERFERED WITH AT THIS APPELLATE THIS. THIS ISSUE IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 13. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.527/NAG./2014 A.Y. 2010-11 14. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWI NG GROUNDS:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACTS BROUGHT OUT BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH ESTABLISHED THAT THE PROJECT S COMPLETED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR MESDCL ARE WORKS CONTRACT AND N OT CONTRACT FOR SALE; 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION U/S.80IA(4) OF THE ACT IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE RATIO OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE ITAT MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S. INDIA HUME PIPE CO., LTD. IN ITA NO.5172/MUM/2008 DT. 29-07-2011 FOR A.Y.2004-05 WHE REIN THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF STATE OF A.P. V/S KONE ELE VATORS INDIA PVT. LTD. 3SCC 389(2005) RELIED UPON BY THE CIT(APPEALS) FOR GRANTING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO DISCUSSED, IS SQUAR ELY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 15. THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT APPEAL ARE SAME AND QUITE SIMILAR WITH THE CASE IN ITA NO.266/NAG./2014. ISSUES NO.1 AND 2 RAISED IN THIS APPEAL ARE INTER-CONNECTED WHICH ARE IN CONNECTION WITH THE DELETION OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA(4) OF THE ACT. THIS IS SUE IS IDENTICAL TO 11 SHRI HARMITSINGH BHAGWANSINGH SETHI THE ISSUE DECIDED BY US IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO.226/NAG./2014, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200910. THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE DECISION GIVEN THEREIN, WE DECIDE THE ISSUE AGAINST THE REVENUE. CONSEQUENTLY, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE RE VENUE ARE HEREBY ORDERED TO BE DISMISSED. 16. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE REVENUES APPEALS ARE HEREBY ORDERED TO BE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30.06.2017 SD/ - P.K. BANSAL VICE PRESIDENT SD/ - AMARJIT SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER NAGPUR, DATED: 30.06.2017 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : (1) THE ASSESSEE; (2) THE REVENUE; (3) THE CIT(A); (4) THE CIT, NAGPUR CITY CONCERNED; (5) THE DR, ITAT, NAGPUR; (6) GUARD FILE. TRUE COPY BY ORDER PRADEEP J. CHOWDHURY SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) ITAT, NAGPUR