DCIT, CIR-4(2), KOLKATA, Kolkata V. M/s RDB Realty & Infrastructure Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 575/KOL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5874 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-07-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 01-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAURABH KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: MIRAJ D. SHAH
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income; Retrospective amendment
• Section: 14A; 80IB

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 575/KOL/2016 M/S RDB REALTY & INFRASTRUCTUR E LTD. PVT. LTD. A.Y.2011-12 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH C KOL KATA [BEFORE HONBLE SHRI J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM & SHRI S.S.GODARA, JM] ITA NO.575 /KOL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-4(2) -VERSUS- M/S RDB REALT Y & INFRASTRUCTURE KOLKATA LTD., KOLKATA (PAN: AADCR 8845 C) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI SAURABH KUMAR, ADDL. CI T, SR.DR FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI MIRAJ D.SHAH, AR DATE OF HEARING : 04.07..2018. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20.07.2018. ORDER PER S.S.GODARA, JM: THIS REVENUES APPEAL FOR A.Y.2011-12 ARISES AGAIN ST THE CIT(A)-2, KOLKATAS ORDER DATED 14.01.2016 PASSED IN APPEAL NO.1818/CI T(A)-2/2014-15 REVERSING THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION INTER-ALIA DISALLOWING/A DDING AMOUNTS OF RS.11,33,631/-, RS.3,83,86,103/- AND RS.70,355/- CORRESPONDING TO S ECTION 14A R.W. RULE 8D, SECTION 80IB DEDUCTION CLAIM & ON ACCOUNT OF LATE PAYMENT OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO PF; RESPECTIVELY IN ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28.03.2014, INVOLVING PROCEEDINGS U/S 143 (3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (ACT). HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. CASE FILE PERUSED. 2. WE COME TO THE FIRST ISSUE OF SECTION 14A R.W.R. 8D DISALLOWANCE OF RS.11,33,631/- MADE IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT AS DELETED IN THE LOWER APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. SUFFICE TO SAY, IT EMERGES AT THE OUTS ET THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DERIVED ANY EXEMPT INCOME IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURTS DECISION IN CIT VS M/S ASHIKA GLOBAL SECURI TIES LTD. IN ITAT 100 OF 2014, GA 2122 OF 2014 DECIDED ON 11.06.2018 UPHOLDS TRIBU NALS SIMILAR ORDER DELETING IDENTICAL DISALLOWANCE IN ABSENCE OF EXEMPT INCOME. WE THEREFORE SEE NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE CIT(A)S FINDINGS UNDER CHALLENG E REVERSING THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ITA NO. 575/KOL/2016 M/S RDB REALTY & INFRASTRUCTUR E LTD. PVT. LTD. A.Y.2011-12 2 ACTION MAKING THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE FOR THIS PR ECISE REASON. THE REVENUE FAILS IN THE FIRST SUBSTANTIVE GROUND. 3. THE REVENUES NEXT GROUND IS THAT OF DISALLOWANC E U/S 80IB OF RS.3,83,86,013/- . IT PERTAINS TO THE RELEVANT HOUS ING PROJECT REGENT GANGA AT UTTARPARA, HOOGHLY, WEST BENGAL. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER NOTICED THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE ALLOTTED MORE THAN ONE RESIDENTIAL FLATS TO SIX PAR TIES FROM 06.06.2007 TO 6.08.2008. THE RELEVANT COMPILATION CHART IS IN PAGE-7 OF THE LOWER APPELLATE ORDER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS THEREFORE OF THE VIEW THAT TH E ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED FOR THE IMPUGNED DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10(F) OF THE ACT AS IT HAD ALLOTTED MORE THAN ONE FLAT TO MORE THAN ONE PERSON; NOT BEING INDIVIDUALS. 4. THE CIT(A) REVERSES THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTI ON AS UNDER :- 4.2. I HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF DETAILS/DOCUMENTS FILED AND THE CASE LAWS REFERRED TO. BOTH AO AND AR DELINEATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THEIR RESPECTIVE ORDER AND SUBMISSION AS QUOTED HEREINABOVE AND THEREFORE, NOT DISCUSSED AGAIN TO R ELIEVE THIS ORDER FROM REPETITION. IN NUTSHELL, THE AO DISALLOWED ASSESSEE 'S CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80 IB OF THE ACT FOR ALLEGED VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF C 1AUSES(C), (E) AND (F) OF SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. IT IS THEREFORE, PERTINENT TO REPRODUCE THE TEXT OF THESE SECTIONS AS FOLLOWS : THE AMOUNT OF DEDUCTION IN THE CASE OF AN UNDERTAKI NG DEVELOPING AND BUILDING HOUSING PROJECTS APPROVED BEFORE THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH, 2008 BY A LOCAL AUTHORITY SHALL BE HUNDRED PER CENT OF T HE PROFITS DERIVED IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR F ROM SUCH HOUSING PROJECT IF,- (C) THE RESIDENTIAL UNIT HAS A MAXIMUM BUILT-UP ARE A OF ONE THOUSAND SQUARE FEET WHERE SUCH RESIDENTIAL UNIT IS SITUATED WITHIN THE CITY OF DELHI OR MUMBAI OR WITHIN TWENTY-FIVE KILOMETRES FR OM THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS OF THESE CITIES AND ONE THOUSAND AND FIVE HU NDRED SQUARE FEET AT ANY OTHER PLACE; (E) NOT MORE THAN ONE RESIDENTIAL UNIT IN THE HOUSI NG PROJECT IS ALLOTTED TO ANY PERSON NOT BEING AN INDIVIDUAL; AND (F) IN A CASE WHERE A RESIDENTIAL UNIT IN THE HOUSI NG PROJECT IS ALLOTTED TO A PERSON BEING AN INDIVIDUAL, NO OTHER RESIDENTIAL UNIT IN SUCH HOUSING PROJECT IS ALLOTTED TO ANY OF THE FOLLOWING PERSONS , NAMELY: (I) THE INDIVIDUAL OR THE SPOUSE OR THE MINOR CHILD REN OF SUCH INDIVIDUAL, ITA NO. 575/KOL/2016 M/S RDB REALTY & INFRASTRUCTUR E LTD. PVT. LTD. A.Y.2011-12 3 (II) THE HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY IN WHICH SUCH INDIV IDUAL IS THE KARTA, (III) ANY PERSON REPRESENTING SUCH INDIVIDUAL, THE SPOUSE OR THE MINOR CHILDREN OF SUCH INDIVIDUAL OR THE HINDU UNDI VIDED FAMILY IN WHICH SUCH INDIVIDUAL IS THE KARTA. ' [SUB-SECTION (E) AND (F) HAS BEEN INSERTED BY FINAN CE ACT, 2009, WITH EFFECT FROM 01/04/2010.] 4.3. FROM THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE IT APPEARS THAT ALL THE SEVENTEEN FLATS ALLOTTED TO SIX PARTIES, WHERE THE AO REFERRED ABOU T ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ONE OR MORE PROVISIONS OF CLAUSES (C), (E) AND (F) OF SECT ION 80IB(10), WERE IN THE CALENDAR YEARS 2007 AND 2008, I.E. BEFORE INSERTION OF SUB-SECTION ( E) AND (F) BY THE FINANCE ACT WITH EFFECT FROM 01/04/2010, AND TH ERE IS NO DISPUTE ON THIS ISSUE. THERE IS ALSO NO DISPUTE THAT SIZE OF EACH FLAT WAS LESS THAN 1,500 SQ. FT. HOWEVER, ON THE BASIS OF THE DECISION OF HON'BLE MUMBAI TRIB UNAL IN THE CASE OF EVEREST HOME CONSTRUCTION (INDIA) PVT. LTD., THE AO HELD TH AT THE SECTION 80IB(10)(E) AND 80IB(10)(F) HAVE RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT AND THERE FORE, THE ASSESSEE HAD CLEARLY VIOLATED CONDITIONS OF THOSE TWO CLAUSES. ON THE OT HER HAND, LD. AR HAS BROUGHT TO MY NOTICE THAT THE SUBJECT IN THE CASE OF EVERES T HOME CONSTRUCTION (INDIA) PVT. LTD WAS IN RESPECT OF CLAUSE (D) OF SECTION 80 IB(10), WHEREAS, IN THE CASE OF EMGEEN HOLDING PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT (2011) 12 TAXMAN 468 (MUM), THE HON'BLE MUMBAI TRIBUNAL.-HAS HELD THAT THAT THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN CLAUSE (E) AND (F) OF SECTION 80IB(10) ARE PROSPECTIVE IN NATURE AND NOT RETROSPECTIVE. THE OPERATIVE PART OF THE JUDGMENT IS EXTRACTED BELOW: 'WE FIND THAT THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IB(10) HAS BEEN DECLINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT SIZE OF THE RESIDENTIAL UNIT WAS IN EXCESS OF 1,000 SQ. FT. WHICH, IN TURN, PROC EEDS ON THE BASIS THAT THE FLATS SOLD TO THE FAMILY MEMBERS ADMITTEDLY BY SEPARATE AGREEMENTS, SHOULD BE TREATED AS ONE UNIT. WE ARE UNABLE TO APP ROVE THIS APPROACH. WE HAVE NOTED THAT THE SIZE OF EACH FLAT, AS EVIDEN T FROM BUILDING PLAN AS DULY APPROVED BY MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES, WAS LESS TH AN 1,000 SQ. FT. WE HAVE ALSO NOTICED THAT IT IS NOT EVEN REVENUES CASE THAT EACH OF FLAT ON STANDALONE BASIS WAS NOT A RESIDENTIAL UNIT. EVEN I F FLATS WERE CONSTRUCTED OR PLANNED IN SUCH A WAY THAT TWO FLATS COULD INDEED BE MERGED INTO ONE LARGER UNIT, AS LONG EACH FLAT WAS AN INDEPENDENT RESIDENTIAL UNIT, DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(1) C OULD NOT BE DECLINED. IT IS IMPORTANT TO BEAR IN MIND THE FACT THAT WHAT SECTION 80-IB(1)) REFERS TO RESIDENTIAL UNIT AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANYTHING TO THE. CONTRARY IN THE INCOME-TAX ACT, THE EXPRESSION 'RESIDENTIAL UNITS' MUST HAVE THE SAME CONNOTATIONS AS ASSIGNED TO IT BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES GRANTING APPROVAL TO THE PROJECT. THE LOCAL AUTHORITY HAD APPROVED THE B UILDING PLAN WITH RESIDENTIAL UNITS OF LESS THAN 1,000 SQ.FT. AND GRA NTED COMPLETION CERTIFICATE AS SUCH. THAT LEAVES NO AMBIGUITY ABOUT THE FACTUAL POSITION. WE HAVE FURTHER NOTED THAT THE PROHIBITION AGAINST SALE OF MORE THAN ONE ITA NO. 575/KOL/2016 M/S RDB REALTY & INFRASTRUCTUR E LTD. PVT. LTD. A.Y.2011-12 4 FLAT IN A HOUSING PROJECT TO MEMBERS OF A FAMILY HA S BEEN INSERTED SPECIFICALLY WITH EFFECT FROM 1-4-2010 AND, IN OUR HUMBLE UNDERSTANDING, THIS AMENDMENT IN LAW CAN ONLY BE TREATED AS PROSPE CTIVE IN EFFECT. WHAT IS, THEREFORE, CLEAR IS THAT SO FAR AS PRE- AMENDME NT POSITION IS CONCERNED, AS LONG AS RESIDENTIAL UNIT HAS LESS THA N SPECIFIED AREA, IS AS PER THE DULY APPROVED PLANS AND IS CAPABLE OF BEING USED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES ON STAND-ALONE BASIS, DEDUCTION UNDER SECT ION 80-1B(J0) CANNOT BE DECLINED IN RESPECT OF THE SAME MERELY BE CAUSE THE END USER, BY BUYING MORE THAN ONE SUCH UNIT IN THE NAME OF FA MILY MEMBERS, HAS MERGED THESE RESIDENTIAL UNITS INTO A LARGER RESIDE NTIAL UNIT OF A SIZE WHICH IS IN EXCESS OF SPECIFIED SIZE. THAT PRECISEL Y IS THE CASE BEFORE US. WHILE ON THE SUBJECT, IT IS USEFUL TO TAKE NOTE OF LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENT BY VIRTUE OF WHICH THE LEGISLATURE PUT CERTAIN RESTRIC TIONS ON SALE OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS TO CERTAIN FAMILY MEMBERS OF A PE RSON WHO HAS BEEN SOLD A RESIDENTIAL UNIT IN THE HOUSING PROJECT. SEC TION 8D.-1B(J 0) NOW PROVIDES AN ADDITIONAL ELIGIBILITY CONDITION THAT I N A CASE WHERE A RESIDENTIAL UNIT IN THE HOUSING PROJECT IS ALLOTTED TO ANY PERSON BEING AN INDIVIDUAL, NO OTHER RESIDENTIAL UNIT IN SUCH HOUSI NG PROJECT IS ALLOTTED TO ANY OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON, NAMELY (F) THE INDIVID UAL OR THE SPOUSE, OR THE MINOR CHILDREN OF SUCH INDIVIDUAL, (IF) THE HUF IN WHICH SUCH INDIVIDUAL, IS A KARTA' (III) ANY PERSON REPRESENTI NG SUCH INDIVIDUAL THE SPOUSE OR MINOR CHILDREN OF SUCH INDIVIDUAL, OR THE HUF IN WHICH SUCH INDIVIDUAL IS A KARTA. [PARA 7] IT IS THUS CLEAR THAT THE AMENDMENT HAS BEEN BROUGHT WITH PROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 1-4-2010, AND THERE IS NO I NDICATION WHATSOEVER TO SUGGEST THAT THESE RESTRICTIONS NEED TO BE APPLI ED WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT. THE AMENDMENT SEEKS TO PLUG A LOOPHOLE BUT RESTRICTS THE REMEDY WITH EFFECT FROM 1-4-2010, I.E., ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 10-11. THE LAW IS VERY CLEAR THAT UNLESS PROVIDED IN THE STATUTE, THE LAW IS ALWAYS PRESUMED TO BE PROSPECTIVE IN NATURE. IT WILL, THEREFORE, BE CO NTRARY OF THE SCHEME OF LAW TO PROCEED ON THE BASIS THAT WHEREVER ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL UNITS ARE SOLD TO FAMILY MEMBERS, ALL THESE RESIDENTIAL UNITS ARE TO BE CONSIDERED AS ONE UNIT. IF LAW PERMITTED SO, THERE WAS NO NEED OF THE INSERTION OF CLAUSE (F) TO SECTION UNDER SECTION 80-IB (10) IT W ILL BE UNREASONABLE TO PROCEED ON THE BASIS THAT LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENT WAS INFRUCTUOUS OR UNCALLED FOR - PARTICULARLY AS THE AMENDMENT IS NOT EVEN STATED TO BE FOR REMOVAL OF DOUBT. ON THE CONTRARY, THIS AMENDMENT SHOWS THAT NO SUCH ELIGIBILITY CONDITIONS COULD BE READ INTO PRE-AMEND MENT LEGAL POSITION. [PARA 8 ] IN VIEW OF THESE DISCUSSIONS, ----- THE DEDUCTION U NDER SECTION 80-1B(10) OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE ENTIRELY , [PARA 9J' ITA NO. 575/KOL/2016 M/S RDB REALTY & INFRASTRUCTUR E LTD. PVT. LTD. A.Y.2011-12 5 4.4. IT CLEARLY EMERGES FROM THE DECISION OF THE HO N'BLE MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF EMGEEN HOLDINGS PVT, LTD. (SUPRA) THAT - (I) CLAUSES (E) AND (T) OF SECTION 80-IB(10) INSERT ED IN FINANCE ACT, 2009, HAVE ONLY PROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 01/04/2010 AND NOT RETROSPECTIVE. THE LAW IS ALWAYS PRESUMED TO BE PRO SPECTIVE IN NATURE UNLESS PROVIDED IN THE STATUTE, THEREFORE, THE ADJA CENT RESIDENTIAL UNITS, EACH LESS THAN 1,500 SQ. FT. IN SIZE, AND ALLOTTED I SOLD BEFORE 0110412010, TO THE SAME COMPANIES OR TO THE FAMILY MEMBERS, CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS ONE-UNIT..-IN-THIS CASE,- FLATS IN QUESTION WERE ALLOTTED IN THE CALENDAR YEARS 2007 AND 2008 AND THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO VIOLATION OF ANY PROVISION OF SECTION 80IB(10) OF T HE ACT. (II) THERE WAS ALSO NO VIOLATION OF CLAUSE (C) OF S ECTION 80-IB(10) AS SIZE OF EACH FLAT BEING AN INDEPENDENT RESIDENTIAL UNIT WAS LESS THAN 1,500 SQ. FT., AS EVIDENT FROM BUILDING PLAN AS DULY APPROVED BY THE MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY AS WELL AS GRANTED COMPLETION CERTIFICATE BY THE MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY AND ALSO EVIDENT FROM REGISTERED SALE DEE D. ' 4.5. AS REGARDS AOS CONTENTION THAT THE DIRECTOR A ND THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD ADMITTED ABOUT CERTAIN VIOLATIONS OF QU ALIFYING CONDITIONS DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO HAS NOT ELABORAT ED THE SAME. NEVERTHELESS, IT IS ONLY ELEMENTARY THAT A LEGAL CLAIM CANNOT BE DEC LINED ONLY BECAUSE THE DIRECTOR OR AR STATED SOMETHING. IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, AND BEARING IN MIND ENTIRETY OF THE CASE, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW. ASSESSEE'S CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80-IB(10) OF THE ACT OF RS.3,83,86,0 13/- FOR ITS 'REGENT GANGA' PROJECT, UTTARPARA, HOOGHLY, WEST BENGAL. 5. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY C ONTENDS DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN DELETING THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE OF ASSESSEES 80IB DEDUCTION AS IT HAS COME ON RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE BE ALLOTTED MORE THAN ONE RESIDENTIAL FLA TS TO MORE THAN ONE PERSON; NOT BEING INDIVIDUALS. WE FIND NO MERIT IN REVENUES INSTANT ARGUMENT. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEES CONCERNED ALLOTMENTS OF THE RESIDENT IAL UNITS TOOK PLACE UPTO 06.08.2008 ONLY WHEREAS THE STATUTORY AMENDMENT IN THE ACT I.E. SECTION IB(10) (E) AND (F) CAME INTO OPERATION FROM 01.04.2010. A COOR DINATE BENCH (SUPRA) HAS ALREADY CONCLUDED THE SAID AMENDMENT TO BE HAVING PROSPECTI VE EFFECT ONLY. ITA NO. 575/KOL/2016 M/S RDB REALTY & INFRASTRUCTUR E LTD. PVT. LTD. A.Y.2011-12 6 6. LEARNED COUNSEL REPRESENTING ASSESSEE QUOTES HO NBLE APEX COURTS DECISION IN CIT VS M/S SARKAR BUILDERS [2015] 375 ITR 392 (SC) SETTLING THE LAW ABOUT THE ABOVE STATUTORY AMENDMENT TO BE PROSPECTIVE EFFECT. LEARN ED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FAILS TO REBUT THIS SETTLED LEGAL POSITION. WE THER EFORE UPHOLD THE CIT(A)S FINDINGS IN DELETING THE IMPUGNED 80IB DEDUCTION DISALLOWANCE. THIS REVENUES INSTANT SECOND SUBSTANTIVE GROUND IS DECLINED ACCORDINGLY. 7. THIS LEAVES WITH THE REVENUES THIRD AND LAST GR IEVANCE SEEKING TO REVIVE THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION DISALLOWING ASSESSEES L ATE PAYMENT OF A SUM OF RS.70,355/- PERTAINING TO THE EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTIO N TO PF. WE FIND HEREIN AS WELL THAT THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURTS DECISI ON IN VIJAYSHREE LTD. [2014] 43 TAXMAN.COM 396 (CAL) HAS SETTLED THE LAW HOLDING TH AT SUCH PAYMENT BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING RETURN U/S 139(1) AS ALLOWABLE. WE A CCORDINGLY REJECT REVENUES INSTANT LAST AND SUBSTANTIVE GROUND AS WELL. 8. THIS REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. O RDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 20.07.2018. SD/- SD/- [J.SUDHAKAR REDDY ] [ S.S.GODARA ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 20.07.2018. [RG SR.PS] COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1.M/S RDB REALTY & INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, 8/1, LAL BAZAR STREET, 1 ST FLOOR, KOLKATA- 700001. 3. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-4 (2), KOLKATA. 3. C.I.T.(A)- 2, KOLKATA 4. C.I.T-2, KOLKATA 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. TRUE COPY BY ORDER, SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY HEAD OF OFFICE/D.D.O, ITAT KOLKATA BENCHES ITA NO. 575/KOL/2016 M/S RDB REALTY & INFRASTRUCTUR E LTD. PVT. LTD. A.Y.2011-12 7