Sahara States-Hyderabad AOP (JV), Hyderabad V. The Addl. CIT, Range-5, Hyderabad

ITA 520/HYD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9027 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 year(s) 6 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 04-10-2018
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 28-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S PRAVEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAMA RAO
• Keywords: Question of law; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 80IB

Judgement Text

ITA NO 520 OF 2011 SAHARA STATES - HYDER ABAD AOP JT VENTURE. PAGE 1 OF 7 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD A BENCH, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.520/HYD/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) SAHARA STATES HYDERABAD, AOP (JT. VENTURE), SAIFABAD HYDERABAD PAN: AAAJS2519Q VS ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE 5 HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI S. RAMA RAO FOR REVENUE : SMT. S. PRAVEENA, DR O R D E R PER SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, J.M. THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR THE A.Y 2007-08 AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A)-V, HYDERABAD, DATED 20.01. 2011. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AS WELL AS IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE DENIAL OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF RS.56,05,926 MA DE BY THE APPELLANT U/S 80IB OF THE I.T. ACT. 2. THAT THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS WRONGLY INTERPRETE D THE PROVISION OF SECTION 80IB OF THE I.T. ACT BOTH IN R ESPECT OF THE PROVISIONS PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT MADE BY THE FINAN CE ACT 2004 AND ALSO POST AMENDMENT AND IS WRONG IN DENYIN G THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE APPELLANT. 3. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVES TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR WITHDRAW ANY OR ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEF ORE THE DATE OF HEARING. DATE OF HEARING : 04.10.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 17.10.2018 ITA NO 520 OF 2011 SAHARA STATES - HYDER ABAD AOP JT VENTURE. PAGE 2 OF 7 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE, A N AOP ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DEVELOPMENT OF LAND AND CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSES, FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y 2 007-08 ON 17.10.2007 DECLARING NET INCOME OF RS.70,53,721 AFT ER CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF RS.56,05,926. THE AO DURING T HE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, OBSER VED THAT AS PER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE IS SU PPOSED TO OBTAIN AND FURNISH THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE OF THE PROJE CT FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION. SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE TILL THE DATE OF ASSESSMENT, HE DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10). AGG RIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A) WHO CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE AO AND THE ASSESSEE IS IN SECOND APPEA L BEFORE US. 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT THE SAID PROJECT HAD STARTED IN THE A.Y 2003-04 AND THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 80IB(10) WAS MADE FOR ALL THE A.YS THEREAFTER. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE HAD COME UP BEFORE THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FO R THE A.YS 2003-04, 2004-05 AND 2005-06 AND 2006-07 IN ITA NOS . 1488 TO 1501 AND 1848 AND 1886 OF 2011 WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONSIDERED THE ISSUE AT LENGTH AND HAS CONSIDERED T HAT CLAUSE (D) OF SECTION 80IB(10) WAS AMENDED W.E.F. 1.4.2005 AND IN RESPECT OF PROJECT WHICH IS APPROVED PRIOR TO SUCH DATE, THE S TIPULATION OF OBTAINING THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE FOR ALLOWING T HE DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) IS NOT APPLICABLE. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALSO TAKEN NOTE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE H AD COMPLETED THE PROJECT BY 31.03.2008 AND HAD REQUESTED THE LOC AL AUTHORITIES FOR APPROVING THE FINAL PROJECT AND IF THE LOCAL AU THORITIES DID NOT ITA NO 520 OF 2011 SAHARA STATES - HYDER ABAD AOP JT VENTURE. PAGE 3 OF 7 ISSUE THE PROJECT COMPLETION CERTIFICATE AS REQUEST ED BY THE ASSESSEE, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO SUBMIT THE SAME TO THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. IT WAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT ALL THE EVID ENCE FROM THE RECORDS DO INDICATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD COMPLETED THE PROJECT AND THEREFORE, THE DEDUCTION CANNOT BE DENIED ONLY ON THE BASIS THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE. THUS, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTE D THAT THIS BEING THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10 ), THE SAME CANNOT BE DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.1498/HYD/2012 IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE HAS CONSIDERED THE ISSUE AT LENGTH AT PARAS 10 TO 15 AN D FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE THE RELEVANT PARAS ARE REPRODUCE D HEREUNDER: 10. AS FAR AS CHRONOLOGICAL EVENTS OF THE HOUSING P ROJECTS ARE CONCERNED, THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FOLLOWING FAC TS: (I) IN THE YEAR 1996, M/S. SAHARA INDIA HOUSING LTD ., M/S. SAHARA FINANCIAL INDIA CORPORATION LTD., M/S. SAHARA STATE S ETC., AND OTHERS ACQUIRED LAND ADMEASURING 44.63 ACRES FROM SRI MAYU R KUNJ & OTHERS. (II) LAND USE WAS CHANGED FROM 'CONSERVATION TO RES IDENTIAL USE' BY GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH. VARIATION IN LAND USE WAS PUBLISHED IN ANDHRA PRADESH GAZETTE ON 19-03-1998. (III) THE HOUSING PROJECT HAS SEVEN BLOCKS NAMELY, VRINDAVANI, GANDHAR, MALLHAR, NEW MALLHAR, BAHAR, NEW BAHAR AND YAMAN. THESE BLOCK HAVE FLATS AS WELL AS ROW HOUSES RANGIN G FROM 345.83 SQ. FT TO 1498 SQ. FT. ITA NO 520 OF 2011 SAHARA STATES - HYDER ABAD AOP JT VENTURE. PAGE 4 OF 7 (IV) THE HYDERABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (HUD A), SANCTIONED BUILDING PLANS IN RESPECT OF BLOCKS VRIN DAVANI, GANDHAR AND MALLHAR VIDE LETTER DATED 07-07-1999 IN RESPECT OF BAHAR BUILDING PLANS WERE SANCTIONED ON 15-02-2002 AND BUILDING PL AN FOR REMAINING BLOCKS WERE SANCTIONED ON 25-06-2003. (V) L B NAGAR MUNICIPALITY GRANTED APPROVAL FOR ENT IRE LAND OF 44.63 ACRES ON 25-08-1999. (VI) DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSING PROJEC T WAS STARTED W.E.F. 10-07-1999 I.E., IMMEDIATELY AFTER SANCTION OF BUILDING PLANS. 11. THE ABOVE CHRONOLOGICAL EVENTS WERE NOT DISPUTE D BY THE EITHER OF THE PARTIES. IT WAS ONLY THE CONTENTION OF THE LATE R AO THAT SINCE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED THE LAND AS EARLY AS 1996, T HE PROJECT WAS TO BE DEEMED TO HAVE STARTED THEN AND THE SAME WAS PRIOR TO 01-10-1998. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTI ON. THIS CONTENTION CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS THE PROJECT WAS NOT EVEN APPR OVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES. NOT EVEN BY 01-10-1998, AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE APPROVALS STATED ABOVE. THEREFORE, THE PROJECT HAS STARTED AFTER 01-10- 1998 AND THEREFORE, THE CONTENTION OF THE AO THAT T HE PROJECT STARTED BEFORE THAT DATE IS NOT FACTUALLY CORRECT. MOREOVER , CLAIM OF ASSESSEE THAT ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO JOINT VENTURE AGREEM ENT AND ALL THE PARTIES HAVE STARTED THE PROJECT IN THEIR INDIVIDUA L CAPACITY. AS PER RECORD, MEMBERS CONTRIBUTED THEIR LAND AS CAPITAL, WHEREAS THE PROJECT WAS CONCEIVED AND CONSTRUCTED BY THE AOP AND THE CL AIM WAS ACCORDINGLY MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE AOP. SINCE THE SE ASPECTS WERE EXAMINED BY THE AOS AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL ASSESSM ENT, THE OPINION OF THE SUBSEQUENT AO THAT AOP CONTINUED THE PROJECT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. LASTLY, WITH REFERENCE TO THE 'PROJECT CO MPLETION' WHICH WAS ONE OF THE REASONS FOR REOPENING ASSESSMENTS AND A LSO FOR DENYING THE DEDUCTION IN AY. 2006-07 (WHICH WAS UPHELD BY THE C IT(A)), THIS WAS ON THE BASIS OF SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENT TO SUB-SEC TION 10 OF SECTION 80IB(10) W.E.F. 01-04-2005. FURNISHING OF ' PROJECT COMPLETION CERTIFICATE' WAS NOT EVEN STIPULATED IN AYS. 2003-04 AND 2004-05, THEREFORE, THAT CANNOT BE THE BASIS FOR RE OPENING THE ASSESSMENTS. THEREFORE, AO'S STAND ON THIS REGARD C ANNOT BE ACCEPTED. 12. AS FAR AS AY. 2005-06 AND 2006-07 ARE CONCERNED , THIS CONDITION HAS COME UP FOR THE FIRST TIME BY THE AMENDMENT TO THE ACT FOR ALL THE PROJECTS WHICH ARE APPROVED BEFORE 01-04-2004, BUT ON OR AFTER 01-04- 1998. THIS ISSUE OF STIPULATION FOR COMPLETION OF P ROJECT BY 31-03- 2008 IS SUBJECT MATTER OF LITIGATION, AS VARIOUS AS SESSEES HAVE BEEN DENIED DEDUCTION BASED ON THE AMENDED PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THE MATTER HAS ULTIMATELY REACHED HON'BLE SUPREME COURT AND BY THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CIT-19, MUMBAI VS. M/S. SAR KAR BUILDERS (SUPRA), THIS ISSUE WAS SET AT REST BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT, WHILE EXAMINING THE AMENDED PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION 80IB . (EXTRACTS) 'WE ARE CONCERNED WITH THE AMENDMENT TO THE SAID SU B-SECTION CARRIED OUT BY FINANCE NO.2, ACT, 2004 W.E.F. 01-04 -2005. IN ALL THESE CASES, THOUGH THE HOUSING PROJECTS WERE SANCTIONED MUCH BEFORE THE ITA NO 520 OF 2011 SAHARA STATES - HYDER ABAD AOP JT VENTURE. PAGE 5 OF 7 SAID AMENDMENT BUT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED AFTER 01-04- 2005 WHEN AMENDED PROVISION HAS COME INTO OPERATION. IT IS AL SO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE AMENDMENT IS PROSPECTIVE IN NATURE. INTERE STINGLY, WHEN THE HOUSING PROJECT WAS APPROVED BY A LOCAL AUTHORITY, WHICH IS THE REQUIREMENT UNDER SUB-SECTION (10) OF SECTION 80IB , AS ON THAT DATE, THE CONDITIONS STIPULATED IN THE SAID SUB-SECTION W ERE MET BY THE ASSESSEES. HOWEVER, CONDITION IN CLAUSE (D) WHICH W AS LAID DOWN FOR THE FIRST TIME BY THE AMENDMENT MADE EFFECTIVE FROM 01-04-2005 IS NOT FULFILLED. IN THIS SCENARIO, THE QUESTION IS AS TO WHETHER THE NEW CONDITIONS MENTIONED IN THE AMENDED PROVISION HAVE ALSO TO BE FULFILLED ONLY BECAUSE THE HOUSING PROJECTS IN QUES TION, THOUGH STARTED BEFORE 01-04-2005, WERE COMPLETED AFTER THE SAID DA TE. THE QUESTION OF LAW, THAT ARISES FOR DISCUSSION THAT NEEDS TO BE ANSWERED IS THUS COMMON IN ALL THESE APPEALS AND CAN BE FORMULATED A S UNDER: 'WHETHER SECTION 80IB(10)(D) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 APPLIES TO A HOUSING PROJECT APPROVED BEFORE 31-03-2005 BUT CO MPLETED ON OR AFTER 01-04-2005?' 13. EVEN THOUGH THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT WAS MAINL Y CONCERNED WITH CLAUSE - (D) OF SECTION 80IB(10) AS AMENDED, THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT DEALT WITH THE ENTIRE PROVISION AND A PPROVED THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF C IT VS. M/S. BRAHMA ASSOCIATES [333 ITR 289]. HON'BLE SUPREME CO URT VIDE PARA 12 HAS HELD AS UNDER: '12. THE ISSUES DEALT WITH FROM PARAS 21 TO 25 BY T HE HIGH COURT ALREADY STANDS APPROVED BY THIS COURT. IN PARA 29, THE HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT CLAUSE (D) HAS PROSPECTIVE OPERATION, VIZ., WITH EFFECT FROM 01-04-2005, AND THIS LEGAL POSITION IS NOT DIS PUTED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE US. WHEAT FOLLOWS FROM THE ABOVE IS THAT PRIOR TO 01- 04-2005, THESE DEVELOPERS/ASSESSEES WHO HAD GOT THE IR PROJECTS SANCTIONED FROM THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES AS 'HOUSING P ROJECTS' EVEN WITH COMMERCIAL USER, THOUGH LIMITED TO THE EXTENT PERMI TTED UNDER THE DC RULES, WERE CONVINCED THAT THEY WOULD BE GETTING TH E BENEFIT OF 100% DEDUCTION OF THEIR INCOME FROM SUCH PROJECTS UNDER SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT. THEIR PROJECTS WERE SANCTIONED MUCH BEFORE 01-04-2005. AS PER THE PERMISSIBLE COMMERCIAL USER ON WHICH THE PR OJECT WAS SANCTIONED, THEY STARTED THE PROJECTS AND THE DATE OF COMMENCING SUCH PROJECT IS ALSO BEFORE 01-04-2005. ALL THESE ASSESS EES WERE MADE KNOWN OF THE PROVISION BY WHICH THESE PROJECTS ARE TO BE COMPLETED AS THOSE DATES HAVE BEEN SPECIFIED FROM TIME TO TIME B Y SUCCESSIVE FINANCE ACT S IN THE SAME PROVISION SECTION 80IB . IN THESE CASES, COMPLETION DATES WERE AFTER 01-04-2005. ONCE THEY ARRANGE THEIR AFFAIRS IN THIS MANNER, THE REVENUE CANNOT DE NY THE BENEFIT OF THIS SECTION APPLYING THE PRINCIPLE OF RETROACTIVIT Y EVEN WHEN THE PROVISION HAS NO RETROSPECTIVITY. TAKE FOR EXAMPLE, A CASE WHERE UNDER THE EXTANT DC RULES, FOR SHOPS AND COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY CONSTRUCTION PERMITTED WAS, SAY, 10% AND THE PROJEC T WAS ALSO SANCTIONED ALLOWING A PARTICULAR ASSESSEE TO CONSTR UCT 10% OF THE AREA FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES. THE SAID DEVELOPER ST ARTED WITH ITS PROJECT MUCH PRIOR TO 01-04-2005 WITH THE AFORESAID PERMISSIBLE USE ITA NO 520 OF 2011 SAHARA STATES - HYDER ABAD AOP JT VENTURE. PAGE 6 OF 7 AND THE CONSTRUCTION WAS AT A VERY ADVANCED STAGE A S ON 01-04-2005. CAN IT BE ARGUED BY THAT REVENUE THAT HE IS TO DEMO LISH THE EXTRA COVERAGE MEANT FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSE AND BRING THE SAME WITHIN THE LIMITS PRESCRIBED BY THE NEW PROVISION IF HE WA NTED TO AVAIL THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT, ONLY BECAUSE OF THE REASON THAT THE PROJECT WAS NOT COMPLETE AS ON 01-04-2005? AS IN SUCH A CASE HE FILED HIS RETURN FOR AN ASSESSMEN T YEAR AFTER 01-04- 2005 AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT OF THE SAID RETURN, LAW PREVAILING AS ON THAT DATE WOULD BE APPLICABLE? ANS WER HAS TO BE IN THE NEGATIVE ON THE PRINCIPLE THAT WITH THE AFORESA ID PLANNING AS PER THE LAW PREVAILING PRIOR TO 01-04- 2005, THESE ASSE SSEES ACTED AND ACQUIRED VESTED RIGHT THEREBY WHICH CANNOT BE TAKEN AWAY. IT IS LUDICROUS ON THE PART OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES TO EXPECT THE ASSESSEES TO DO SOMETHING WHICH IS ALMOST IMPOSSIBL E'. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE ARE OF THE OPIN ION THAT ASSESSEE CANNOT BE COMPELLED TO COMPLY WITH THE CONDITION OR FULFILL THE CONDITION WHICH WAS NOT STIPULATED AT THE TIME OF S ANCTION OF THE PROJECT. THE CASE LAW RELIED ON BY LD. DR DOES NOT APPLY ON FACTS AND ALSO IN VIEW OF JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT C ITED ABOVE.. 14. APART FROM THE JUDICIAL PRINCIPLES AS STATED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT, EVEN ON FACTS ALSO THE DEDUCTION CAN NOT BE DENIED. ASSESSEE HAS COMPLETED ITS PROJECT BY 31-03-2008 AN D HAS REQUESTED THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES FOR APPROVING THE FINAL PROJE CT. IF THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES DID NOT ISSUE THE 'PROJECT COMPLETION C ERTIFICATE' AS REQUESTED BY ASSESSEE, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO FURNIS H THE SAID CERTIFICATE TO THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. ALL THE EVIDENCES ON RE CORD DO INDICATE THAT ASSESSEE HAS COMPLETED THE PROJECT, THEREFORE, JUST BECAUSE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH THE 'PROJECT COMPLETION CERTIFICATE', THE DEDUCTION CANNOT BE DENIED ON THAT BASIS. THE ELIGI BLE DEDUCTION CANNOT BE DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE. 15. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE UPHOLD THE ORDERS OF T HE CIT(A) SETTING ASIDE THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN AYS. 2003-04, 2004-05 AND 2005-06. REVENUE APPEALS HAVE NO MERIT AND ACCORDIN GLY THEY ARE DISMISSED. 6, FURTHER, AS RIGHTLY OBSERVED BY THE TRIBUNAL, TH OUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS COMPLETED THE PROJECT BY 31.03.200 8 AND HAD REQUESTED THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES FOR ISSUANCE OF COM PLETION CERTIFICATE SINCE THERE WAS NO PROVISION UNDER THE GHMC ACT OF 1985 FOR ISSUANCE OF COMPLETION CERTIFICATE, THE SA ME WAS NOT FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, AS PER SECTION 455 OF THE GHMC ACT AND SUB SECTION (2) THEREOF, NO PERSON SHA LL OCCUPY OR ITA NO 520 OF 2011 SAHARA STATES - HYDER ABAD AOP JT VENTURE. PAGE 7 OF 7 PERMIT TO BE OCCUPIED ANY SUCH BUILDING, OR USE OR PERMIT TO BE USED THE BUILDING OR PART THEREOF AFFECTED BY ANY W ORK, UNTIL: (A) PERMISSION HAS BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE COMMISSIONER IN THIS BEHALF ; OR (B) THE COMMISSIONER HAS FAILED FOR TWENTY-ONE DAYS AFT ER RECEIPT OF THE NOTICE OF COMPLETION TO INTIMATE HIS REFUSAL OF THE SAID PERMISSION. 7. AS SEEN FROM THE ABOVE, IF THE COMMISSIONER DOES NOT INTIMATE REFUSAL TO GIVE THE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE, THEN IT IS DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN GIVEN. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES A LSO, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80I B(10) OF THE ACT AS THE RELEVANT A.Y BEFORE US I.E. A.Y 2007-08 WHIC H IS SUBSEQUENT TO THE INITIAL A.Y OF THE CLAIM AND THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALREADY ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION IN THE EARLIER A.YS. 8. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17 TH OCTOBER, 2018. SD/- SD/- (S.RIFAUR RAHMAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (P. MADHAVI DEVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 17 TH OCTOBER, 2018. VINODAN/SPS COPY TO: 1 SAHARA STATES HYDERABAD, AOP (JOINT VENTURE) SA HARA STATES, SAHARA MANZIL, SAIFABAD, HYDERABAD 2 ADDL. CIT, RANGE-5, IT TOWERS, HYDERABAD 3 CIT (A)-V HYDERABAD 4 PR. CIT IV HYDERABAD 5 THE DR, ITAT HYDERABAD 6 GUARD FILE BY ORDER