ACIT Vs Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure Pvt Ltd (ITAT Ahmedabad)
ITAT Ahmedabad held that in terms of provisions of sub Section 5 of Section 80 IA of the Income Tax Act, deduction has to be given unit wise without considering profit or loss of other eligible units.
Facts- Revenue has preferred the present appeal contesting that CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of IT Act of Rs.1,72,57,400/- on quantum additions i.e. Set off of losses of Rs.49,21,774/ while claiming deduction u/s. 80IA and disallowance of claim of deduction u/s. 80IA of Rs. 4,82,31,111/-.
Conclusion- Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Punit Construction Company has held that in terms of provisions of sub Section 5 of Section 80 IA, deduction has to be given unit wise without considering profit or loss of other eligible units.
Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal, in the very same common order deleted the Penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) on the very same issue for the earlier Asst. Years 2007-08 to 2010-11 by observing that the assesses’s claim is a bona fide one, all the particulars were fully disclosed in the return itself, supported by audit reports under Section 80IA(7) in Form No. 10 CCB and none of the particulars or figures are found to be untrue or wrong. The disallowance is made only due to a bona fide difference of opinion between the assessee and the Department as to whether the assessee is a ‘developer’ or ‘contractor’. It further appears that relying on the decision passed in the matter of Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd., reported in 322 ITR 158 (SC) the penalty was deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) which according to us is without any ambiguity so as to warrant interference.
