Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
26720514 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
2 year(s) 10 month(s) 16 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
14-12-2012
Appeal Filed By
Department
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
C
Next Hearing Date
05-12-2012
Assessment Year
2006-2007
Appeal Filed On
28-01-2010
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH C AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI, A.K.GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.267/AHD/2010 & C.O. NO.65/AHD/2010 (A/O ITA NO.267/AHD/2010) ASSESSMENT YEAR :2006-07 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(1), 1 ST FLOOR, NEW AAYKAR BHAVAN, NR. CUSTOM & EXCISE OFFICE, OPP. GOVERNMENT PLOYTECHENIC, B/H KAMDHENU COMPLEX, AMBAWADI, AHMEDABAD M/S SURAJ BUILDCON, 6, KESHAVBAUG SOCIETY, RAMNAGAR, SABARMATI, AHMEDABAD [ PAN NO.AAXFS 4457J ] V/S . V/S . M/S. SURAJ BUILDCON, 6, KESHAVBAUG SOCIETY, RAMNAGAR, SABARMATI, AHMEDABAD INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(1), AHMEDABAD . / APPELLANT .. / RESPONDENT) /BY ASSESSEE SHRI DHIREN SHAH, AR /BY RESPONDENT SHRI D.K. SINGH, SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 05-12-2012 ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 14-12-2012 ' ' ' ' / // / O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTION (CO ) OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-XV, AHMEDABAD DATED 25-11-2009 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2006-07. ITA NO.267/AHD/2010 & CO NO.65/AHD/2010 A.Y. 200 6-07 ITO WD-9(1) ABD V. M/S. SURAJ BUILDCON PAGE 2 FIRST WE TAKE UP REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO.267/AHD /2010. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED SOLITARY GROUND, WHICH RE ADS AS UNDER:- 1) THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A)-XV, AHMED ABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS.1930194/- WHICH WAS DISALLOWED BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A FIRM ENGAGED IN CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSING PROJECT. THE CASE OF THE AS SESSEE WAS PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WAS FRAM ED THEREBY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) DECLINED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) OF THE ACT AND ALSO MADE DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT OUT OF LABOUR EXPENSES. AGAINST THIS, ASSESSEE FILE D APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS ALLOWED THE A PPEAL. 4. NOW REVENUE HAS FILED APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER O F LD. CIT(A) FOR DELETION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. THE EFFECTIVE GROUND IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AMOUNTING TO RS.19,30,194/- IN RE SPECT OF CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) OF THE ACT . LD. SR-DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IS CRYPTIC SINCE THE LD. CI T(A) HAS NOT GIVEN ANY FINDING IN RESPECT OF WHETHER THE RISK AND REWARD WAS BORNE BY THE DEVELOPER. HE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER. ON THE CO NTRARY, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND HE S UBMITTED THAT ALL THE CONDITIONS AS ENVISAGED U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT ARE DULY STAND FULFILLED. HE SUBMITTED THAT LAND OWNERS ARE THE PARENT OF THE PA RTNER OF THE ASSESSEE-FIRM. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE UNDISPUTED FACT IS THAT THE A SSESSEE-FIRM WAS HANDED OVER POSSESSION OF THE LAND BY THE LAND OWNERS. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN TERMS OF SUB-CLAUSE-(V) AND (VI) OF SECTION 2(47) O F THE ACT THE TRANSFER IS COMPLETED AS THE PROPERTY WAS HANDED OVER TO THE DE VELOPER. HE PLACED ITA NO.267/AHD/2010 & CO NO.65/AHD/2010 A.Y. 200 6-07 ITO WD-9(1) ABD V. M/S. SURAJ BUILDCON PAGE 3 RELIANCE ON THE PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE-(VI) OF SECTIO N 2(47) OF THE ACT IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THAT TRANSFER IN RELATION TO CAPI TAL ASSET INCLUDES AND ANY TRANSACTION WHICH HAS EFFECT OF TRANSFERRING OR ENA BLING THE ENJOYMENT OF ANY IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. HE RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF HO NBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT V. RADHE DEVELOPERS (2012) 341 ITR 403 (GUJ). HE SUBMITTED THAT THE CASE IS FULLY COVERED BY THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. DR IN REJOINDER SUBMITTED THAT THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE DISTINGUISHABLE F ROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS CITED BY LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RENDERED IN T HE CASE OF RADHE DEVELOPERS (SUPRA). HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO FINDING WIT H REGARD TO WHETHER THE RISK WAS BORNE BY THE ASSESSEE-FIRM. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE AND THE CASE LAW CITED BY LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE PERUSED THE TRIPARTITE DEVELOPING AGREEMENT PURPORT ED TO HAVE BEEN EXECUTED AMONG THE LAND OWNER, ASSESSEE-FIRM AND DH ANLAXMI (VADAJ) OWNERS ASSOCIATION. THE UNDISPUTED FACT IN THIS CAS E IS THAT AS PER CLAUSE-17 OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AT PAGE-96 OF THE PAPE R BOOK SUBMITTED BY ASSESSEE, IT WAS AGREED BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE-FIRM A ND THE LAND OWNER THAT WHATEVER AMOUNT COMES @ RS.500 PER SQ.MT WILL HAVE TO BE PAID BY THE DEVELOPER I.E. ASSESSEE-FIRM TO THE LAND OWNER. IT WAS ALSO AGREED THAT ALL ADDITIONAL PROFIT, BENEFIT OR INCOME OF THE SAID LA ND AND DEVELOPMENT THEREOF WILL BE THAT OF THE ASSESSEE-FIRM. FROM THE BARE RE ADING OF THE SAID CLAUSE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT AT THE TIME OF EXECUTION NO CONSIDERAT ION WAS PAID. IT IS ALSO EVIDENT FROM THE SAID CLAUSE THAT ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE ALL ADDITIONAL PROFIT, BENEFIT OR INCOME OF THE SAID LA ND, MEANING THEREBY REWARD WAS FOR THE DEVELOPER. BUT THE SAID CLAUSE DOES NEI THER SPEAK ABOUT THE RISK ELEMENT NOR MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE DEVELOPER WOULD HAVE TO PAY THE LAND OWNER THE AGREED PRICE IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES. WE FIN D THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE ENTITLEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR CLAIMIN G DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) ITA NO.267/AHD/2010 & CO NO.65/AHD/2010 A.Y. 200 6-07 ITO WD-9(1) ABD V. M/S. SURAJ BUILDCON PAGE 4 OF THE ACT IN PARA 7 TO 9 OF HIS ORDER, WHICH IS RE PRODUCED HEREINBELOW FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY:- 7. FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) FIRST AND FOREMOST SPECIFIED CONDITIONS HAVE TO BE FULFILLED AS LAID DOWN IN THE SECTION 80IB(10).LET US SEE WHETHER THESE CONDITIONS ARE FULFILLED BY TH E APPELLANT OR NOT. A) THE UNDERTAKING SHOULD HAVE COMMENCED THE PROJEC T AFTER 1.10.1998 AND COMPLETES THE PROJECT BEFORE 31.3.200 8 IF IT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY BEFORE 1.4.2004 ; IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT DEVELOPMENT PERMISSION S WAS GIVEN BY AUDA TO THE LAND OWNERS TO WHOM AS PER CLAUSE 17 OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THE APPELLANT PAID PRICE OF T HE SAID LAND. CLAUSE 17 OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS REPRODUCE D BELOW: IN THIS AGREEMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT WHICH HAS BEEN E XECUTED BETWEEN THE PARTY OF THE FIRST PART AND THE PARTY O F THE THIRD PART, TOWARDS THE PRICE OF THE SAID LAND, WHATEVER AMOUNT COMES AT THE RATE OF RS.500.00 RUPEES FIVE HUNDRED ONLY PER SQUA RE METER WILL HAVE TO BE PAID BY DEVELOPER PARTY OF THE SECOND PA RT TO THE PARTY OF THE FIST PART. ALL ADDITIONAL PROFIT, BENEFIT OR IN COME OF THEE SAID LAND AND DEVELOPMENT THEREOF WILL BE THAT OF THE PARTY O F THE SECOND PART. THE ARGUMENT GIVEN DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BY THE LD. AR ALSO HOLDS GOOD THAT THE CONDITION STATES THAT THE HOUSI NG PROJECT SHOULD BE APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY, IT DOES NOT SPE CIFY APPROVAL SHOULD BE IN WHOSE NAME. IN THIS BACKGROUND IN MY VIEW THIS CONDITION STANDS FULFILLED, THE PROJECT HAS BEEN COMPLETED EARLIER THAN 31.3.2008 A ND THE APPELLANT HAS PURCHASED THE LAND AS WELL, DEVELOPMENT PERMISS IONS ETC., ARE TAKEN IN THIS LINE OF BUSINESS IN THE NAME OF THE L AND OWNERS ONLY WHO SUBSEQUENTLY ENTER INTO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT W ITH THE DEVELOPERS, IN THIS CASE IT WAS ENTERED ON 5.2.2004 . B) THE PROJECT IS ON THE SIZE OF PLOT OF LAND WHICH HAS A MINIMUM AREA OF 1 ACRE: AO HAS NOT DOUBTED THIS CONDITION AND THIS ONE STAN DS FULFILLED AS TOTAL AREA OF THE LAND IS ABOUT 22157 SQ..MTR. WHIC H IS ABOVE ONE ACRE. C) THE RESIDENTIAL UNIT HAS A MAXIMUM BUILT UP AREA OF 1500 SQUARE FEET: THIS CONDITION IS NOT UNDER DISPUTE. ITA NO.267/AHD/2010 & CO NO.65/AHD/2010 A.Y. 200 6-07 ITO WD-9(1) ABD V. M/S. SURAJ BUILDCON PAGE 5 D) THE BUILT UP AREA OF THE SHOPS AND OTHER COMMERC IAL ESTABLISHMENTS INCLUDED IN THE HOUSING PROJECT DOES NOT EXCEED 5% OF THE AGGREGATE BUILT UP AREA OR 2000 SQ.FT. WHICHEVER IS LESS: THUS THE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 80IB(10) M ENTIONED ABOVE STAND FULFILLED. 8. NOW TO COME TO THE LEGAL CONTROVERSY WHETHER 80I B(1) CAN BE DENIED TO AN ASSESSEE ON THE LOGIC TAKEN BY THE AO THAT HE IS NOT THE OWNER OF THE LAND THEN HOW CAN HE BE A DEVELOPER, HIS STATUS IS JUST THAT OF A CONTRACTOR. THIS POINT HAS TO BE EXAMINED IN THE LIGHT OF THE D ECISION DATED 17.11.2008 GIVEN BY HONBLE ITAT BENCH A AHMEDABAD IN THE CASE OF M/S SHAKTI CORPORATION, BARODA IN ITA NO. 1503/AHD/2008 IN AY 2005- 06. PARA 16 OF THE DECISION IS REPRODUCED BELOW:- THE FACTS INVOLVED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF RADHE DEVELOPERS (SUPRA) AND A CCORDINGLY WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACQUIRED THE DOMINANT CONTROL OVER THE LAND AND HAS DEVELOPED THE HOUSING PROJECT BY INCURRING ALL THE EXPENSES AND TAKING ALL THE RISKS INVOLVED THEREIN. WE MAY MENTION HERE THAT, IN OUR OPINION, THE DECIS ION IN THE CASE OF RADHE DEVELOPERS (SUPRA) WILL NOT APPLY IN A CASE WHERE THEREFORE, ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO THE AGREEMENT FOR A FIXED REMUNERATION MERELY AS A CONTRACTOR TO CONSTRUCT OR DEVELOP THE HOUSING PROJECT ON BEHALF OF THE LAND OWNER. THE AG REEMENT ENTERED INTO IN THAT CASE WILL NOT ENTITLE THE DEVE LOPER TO HAVE THE DOMINANT CONTROL OVER THE PROJECT AND ALL THE RISKS INVOLVE THEREIN WILL VEST WITH THE LAND OWNERS ONLY. THE INTEREST O F THE DEVELOPER WILL BE RESTRICTED ONLY FOR THE FIXED REMUNERATION FOR WHICH HE WOULD BE RENDERING THE SERVICES. THE DECISION IN TH E CASE OF RADHE DEVELOPERS (SUPRA) HAS NOT DEALT WITH SUCH SITUATION. THE PROPOSITION OF LAW LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF RADHE DEVELOPERS CANNOT BE APPLIED UNIVERSALLY WITHOUT LOOKING INTO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BY THE DEVELOPER ALONG WITH THE LAND OWNER. IN THE CASE OF SHAKTI CORPORATION SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED COPY OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMEN T AND CRUX OF THE AGREEMENT IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED THE LAND AND HAS DEVELOPED THE HOUSING PROJECT AT ITS OWN, T HEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE WILL BE ENTITLE F OR THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(1). THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME C OURT IN THE CASE OF FAQIR CHAND GULATI (SUPRA) WILL NOT ASSIST THE REVENUE, AS THE AGREEMENT IS NOT SHARING OF THE CONSTRUCTED AREA. IN OTHER CASES THE COPY OF AGREEMENT SINCE HAS NOT BEEN SUBM ITTED BEFORE US. IF SUBMITTED THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE AGREEMENT ITA NO.267/AHD/2010 & CO NO.65/AHD/2010 A.Y. 200 6-07 ITO WD-9(1) ABD V. M/S. SURAJ BUILDCON PAGE 6 WERE NOT SPECIFICALLY ARGUED BEFORE AND PLACED BEFO RE US, WE THEREFORE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY TO BOTH THE PARTIES SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND RESTORE ALL O THER APPEALS TO THE FILE OF THE AO SHALL LOOK INTO THE AGREEMENT EN TERED INTO BY EACH OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE LAND OWNER AND DECIDE WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS IN FACT PURCHASED THE LAND FOR A FIXED CONSIDERATION FROM THE LAND OWNER AND HAS DEVELOPED THE HOUSING P ROJECT AT ITS OWN COST AND RISKS INVOLVED IN THE PROJECT. IN THE CASE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FINDS THAT PRACTICALLY THE LAND H AS BEEN BOUGHT BY THE DEVELOP AND DEVELOPER HAS ALL DOMINANT CONTR OL OVER THE PROJECT AND HAS DEVELOPED THE LAND AT HIS OWN COST AND RISKS, THE AO SHOULD ALLOW THE DEDUCTION TO THE ASSESSEE U/S. 80IB(10). IN CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FINDS THAT THE DEVELOPER HAS ACTED ON BEHALF OF THE LAND OWNER AND HAS GOT THE FIXED CONS IDERATION FROM THE LAND OWNER FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE HOUSING P ROJECTS. THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB( 10) TO THE ASSESSEE. 9. THUS THROUGH THE ABOVE DECISION HONBLE ITAT HAS LAID DOWN THAT TO AVAIL ITSELF OF THE DEDUCTION AN APPELLANT SHOULD H AVE ACQUIRED DOMINANT CONTROL OVER THE PROJECT AND SHOULD HAVE DEVELOPED THE HOU SING PROJECT AT ITS OWN COST AND RISKS. TO ASCERTAIN WHICH HONB LE ITAT DIRECTED THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TO BE LOOKED INTO. IN THIS CA SE THE APPELLANT PRACTICALLY PURCHASED THE LAND AND BORE THE ENTIRE COST AND RISK OF DEVELOPMENT THE PROJECT. THIS IS PROVED BY GOING TH ROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT SPECIALLY FOLLOWING CLAUSES: 2 (THE SAID LAND HAS BEEN HANDED OVER ABSOLUTELY T O THE DEVELOPER (APPELLANT) FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPMEN T AND SALE) 8 (TO RECOVER PRICES OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF RESIDENT IAL UNITS IN THE HOUSING PROJECT) 20 (THE EXPENDITURE AS WELL AS PROFIT WOULD BE THAT OF THE DEVELOPER) 21 (THE UNSOLD PORTIONS WOULD BE UNDER THE POSSESSI ON AND CONTROL OF THE APPELLANT FIRM) AS THE APPELLANT FULFILLS THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) AND HAS INVESTED IN COST OF LAND AND A CQUIRED DOMINANT CONTROL OVER THE LAND FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PR OJECT IT MEETS ALL THE TESTS LAID DOWN BY HONBLE ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCH A I N THE DECISION DELIVERED IN THE CASE OF M/S. SHAKTI CORPORATION, THEREFORE THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW 80IB(10) DEDUCTION TO THE APPELLA NT. ITA NO.267/AHD/2010 & CO NO.65/AHD/2010 A.Y. 200 6-07 ITO WD-9(1) ABD V. M/S. SURAJ BUILDCON PAGE 7 WE FIND THAT ASSESSING OFFICER DECLINED THE DEDUCTI ON ON THE BASIS THAT ASSESSEE-FIRM HAS NOT PURCHASED THE LAND AND ALSO N OT CONTRIBUTED ANY AMOUNT FOR PURCHASE OF LAND. THUS, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ACQUIRED DOMINANT CONTROL OVER LAND AND IT IS ONLY A CONSTRUCTION AGE NT FOR THE LAND OWNERS. THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RADHE DEVELOPERS (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT THE DEVELOPERS S HOULD BE THE OWNER OF THE LAND FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) OF THE ACT , HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE THE DEVELOPER AND THE RISK ELEMENT SHOULD ALSO BE OF THE DEVELOPER. IN THE CASE IN HAND, IT IS NOT CLEAR WHETHER THE PR OJECT WAS DEVELOPED BY THE ASSESSEE-FIRM AT ITS OWN RISK AND COST AND NOT THAT OF THE LAND OWNERS AND THIS ASPECT HAS NOT BEEN EXAMINED BY THE LD. CIT(A). IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER WE HEREBY SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND THIS I SSUE IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE IT AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF RADHE DEVELOPERS (SUPRA) BY WAY OF SPEAKING ORDER AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OP PORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO ASSESSEE.. THIS GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL IS ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR S TATISTICAL PURPOSES. COMING TO ASSESSEES CO NO.65/AHD/2010. 8. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND OF ITS CO:- ALL THE GROUNDS IN THIS CROSS OBJECTIONS ARE MUT UALLY EXCLUSIVE AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER:- 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -XV, AHMEDABAD AFTER GOING THROUGH THE DETAILS AND SUBMI SSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT FOUND THAT THE RESPONDENT HAS FULFILLED THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) AND HAS I NVESTED IN COST OF LAND AND ACQUIRED DOMINANT CONTROL OVER THE LAND FO R THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT. THE FACTS OF RESPONDENTS CASE IS FULL Y COVERED BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCH A DELIVE RED IN THE CASE OF M/S. SHAKTI CORPORATION AND ACCORDINGLY THE LD. CIT (A) HAS RIGHTLY ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) OF THE ACT OF R S.19,30,194/- IN FAVOUR OF THE RESPONDENT. ITA NO.267/AHD/2010 & CO NO.65/AHD/2010 A.Y. 200 6-07 ITO WD-9(1) ABD V. M/S. SURAJ BUILDCON PAGE 8 9. SINCE WE HAVE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND REMITTED BACK THE ISSUE OF REVENUES APPEAL TO HIS FILE AS INDICATED ABOVE AND MOREOVER, THE CO HAS BEEN FILED BY ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF THE ORD ER OF LD. CIT(A). HENCE, THE CO OF ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 10. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES CO IS DISMISSED AS IN FRUCTUOUS. 11. IN COMBINED RESULT, APPEAL OF REVENUE IS ALLOWED FO R STATISTICAL PURPOSED AND THAT OF ASSESSEES CO IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE AT CAPTION PAGE. SD/- SD/- (A.K.GARODIA) (KUL BHARAT) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AHMEDABAD, *DKP #$%- 14/12/2012 +,- . ' ' ' ' //0 //0 //0 //0 10 10 10 10 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / APPELLANT 2. / RESPONDENT 3. $-$/4 5 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 5- / CIT (A) 5. 0 78 ///4, /4!, +,- / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 8;< => / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ ' , /TRUE COPY/ ?/+ $ /4!, +,- . STRENGTHEN PREPARATION & DELIVERY O F ORDERS IN THE ITAT 1) DATE OF TAKING DICTATION 10/12 2) DIRECT DICTATION BY MEMBER STRAIGHT ON COMPUTER/LAPTOP/DRAGON DICTATE NO 3) DATE OF TYPING & DRAFT ORDER PLACE BEFORE MEMBER 10/12 4) DATE OF CORRECTION 11/12 5) DATE OF FURTHER CORRECTION - - 6) DATE OF INITIAL SIGN BY MEMBERS 11/12 7) ORDER UPLOADED ON 14/12 8) ORIGINAL DICTATION PAD-PART HAS BEEN ENCLOSED IN THE FILE YES 9) FINAL ORDER AND 2 ND COPY SEND TO BENCH CLERK ON 14/12
