THE DCIT, Hyderabad v. M/s Shapoorji Pallonji Biotech Park PLtd, Secunderabad

ITA 101/HYD/2010 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 31-01-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 10122514 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AAFCS6041M
Bench Hyderabad
Appeal Number ITA 101/HYD/2010
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 9 day(s)
Appellant THE DCIT, Hyderabad
Respondent M/s Shapoorji Pallonji Biotech Park PLtd, Secunderabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 31-01-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 31-01-2011
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 22-01-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A' HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI G.C.GUPTA VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI AKBER BASHA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.101/HYD/10 : ASSTT . YEAR 2005-06 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX CIRCLE 3(1) HYDERABAD V/S. M/S. SHAPOORJI PALLONJI BIOTECH PARK P.LTD. HYDERABAD. (PAN - AAFCS 6041 M) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI V.SRINIVAS RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SRI RAM SESHADRI O R D E R PER AKBER BASHA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE O RDER OF THE CIT(A) TIRUPATI DATED 30.10.2009 FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2005- 06. 2. EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL R EAD AS FOLLOWS- 1. THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) IS ERRONEOUS BOTH ON FACTS AND LAW. 2. THE CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO DISTURBANCE OF ACCOUNTING METHOD CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AS THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS THE FIRST YEAR OF THE ASSESSEE TO RECEIVE REVENUE. 3. THE CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT THE METHOD ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS IN VOGUE IN ASSESSING THE REVENUE IN REAL ESTATE BUSINESS. ITA NO.101/HYD/10 M/S.SHAPOORJI PALLONJI BIOTECH PARK P.LTD.HYD 2 3. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS EN GAGED IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF BIOTECH PARK AND HAS BEEN ALLOT TED 250 ACRES OF LAND AT TURKAPALLY VILALGE SHAMEERPET MANDAL RANG AREDDY DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH. ASSESSEE HAS BEEN MANDATED BY THE MEMOR ANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) WITH THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH TO DEVELOP AN INTEGRATED BIOTECH PARK BY PROVIDING ALL NECESSARY INFRASTRUCTURES INCLUDING INCUBATION CENTRE FOR THE USE OF BIOTECH INDUSTRY. THE DEVELOPED LAND WOULD BE TRANSFERRED T O END USERS ON FREE-HOLD BASIS WITH THE MAINTENANCE OF THE BIO-TECH PA RK REMAINING WITH THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ONLY. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD REGISTERED TWO PLOTS MEASURING 15 .87 ACRES FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.3.06 CRORES BUT THE SALE CONSIDERATION HAS NOT BEEN BROUGHT TO REVENUE ACCOUNT AND THE ASSESSEE DECLARED NIL INCOME ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS FO LLOWING ACCOUNTING STANDARD 9 ACCORDING TO WHICH THE INCOME WOU LD BE RECOGNIZED ONLY ON COMPLETION OF ALL THE DEVELOPMENT WORKS BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT SALE DEEDS WERE EFFECTED ONLY TO FACI LITATE THE BUYER COMPANIES TO GO AHEAD WITH THEIR BUSINESS PLANS OB TAIN CREDIT AND OTHER TERM LOAN FACILITIES ETC. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO MENTIONED THAT THE COMPANY IS STILL OBLIGED TO COMPLETE THE REQUI RED INFRASTRUCTURE EVEN THOUGH PLOT WAS REGISTERED TO BUYE RS. IT WAS THEREFORE PLEADED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE RE WAS NO SALE REVENUE ON THE SALE OF PLOTS DURING THE YEAR. THE ASSE SSING OFFICER HOWEVER WAS NOT CONVINCED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF TH E ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED THE APPROV AL FOR THE PROPOSAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER S.80IA OF TH E INCOME TAX ACT 1961 WITH CERTAIN TERMS AND CONDITIONS VIDE GOVERN MENT OF INDIAS APPROVAL NO.15/17/2003-IP&ID DATED 21 APRIL 2004 THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS INTEND ING TO ITA NO.101/HYD/10 M/S.SHAPOORJI PALLONJI BIOTECH PARK P.LTD.HYD 3 POSTPONE THE REVENUE OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 TO CLAIM AND GET AWAY WITH THE D EDUCTION UNDER S.80IA IN RESPECT OF THIS INCOME ALSO IN THAT YE AR. HE ACCORDINGLY PROCEED TO TAX THE SALE CONSIDERATION IN RES PECT OF TWO POTS SOLD DURING THE YEAR AFTER DEDUCTING THE PROPORT IONATE COST OF DEVELOPMENT ON THE BASIS OF WORK-IN-PROGRESS DONE TILL THE END OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ARRIVED T RS.1.81 CRORES AND ACCORDINGLY DETERMINED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FROM THE SALE OF PLOTS AT RS.1 24 94 587/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THUS COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ON A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1 24 94 587/- AS AGAIN ST NIL INCOME RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT D ATED 24.12.2007 PASSED UNDER S.143(3) OF THE ACT. 4. ON APPEAL THE CIT (A) CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF THE BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THE FACT THA T THE SALE OF PLOTS FURTHER ENTAILS CERTAIN OBLIGATIONS ON T HE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO MAKE THEM FIT FOR THE BUSINESS OF THE BUYERS HELD THAT THERE WAS NO NEED TO RECOGNIZE THE REVENUE FROM OUT OF THE SALE OF PLOTS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. HE ACCORDINGL Y NULLIFIED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STRONGLY REL YING ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT (A) WAS NOT CORRECT IN NULLIFYING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE INCOME HAS IN FACT ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE AND WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR AN D AS SUCH IT WAS CORRECTLY BROUGHT TO TAX BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R. HE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS T HE FIRST ONE IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED ANY INCOME THE CIT (A) WAS NOT ITA NO.101/HYD/10 M/S.SHAPOORJI PALLONJI BIOTECH PARK P.LTD.HYD 4 JUSTIFIED IN OBSERVING THAT THERE WAS NO DISTURBANCE IN THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE DECISION OF TH E MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHAPOORJI PALLONJ I & CO.(RAJKPT)PVT. LTD. REFERRED TO BY THE CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAS NO APPLICATION TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE ON HAND. HE P LACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF CIT V/S. DHIR AND CO. COLONISERS P. LTD. (288 ITR 561) IN SUPPORT OF HIS ARGUMENTS AND SUBMITTED THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF TH E CIT(A) BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 7. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE OTHER HAND STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND SUBMIT TED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS OBLIGED TO DELIVER THE PLOTS TO THE BUYERS IN SUCH A STATE NOT ONLY WITHIN THE PLOT BUT ALSO ALL THE COMMON FACIL ITIES ASSURED AT THE TIME OF SALE OR MOU WITH THE GOVERNMENT. HE SUBMI TTED THAT MERE SALE AND REGISTRATION OF THE POTS WOULD NOT TANTA MOUNT TO REALISATION OF REVENUE LEAVING NO FURTHER OBLIGATION ON THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE SALE DEEDS EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE I N FAVOUR OF THE BUYERS OF THE TWO PLOTS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WERE SUBJECTED TO TERMS SPECIFIED IN THE AGREEMENT TO SEL L AS PER WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD THE FOLLOWING SIGNIFICANT OBLIGATI ONS TO PERFORM- (A) PROVIDE THE BUYER WITH ALL-WEATHER MOTORABLE ROAD TO THE PLOT AND TO ENSURE THAT THE SAME IS MAINTAINED IN GOOD CONDITION AT ALL TIMES. (B) PROVIDE A SEWERAGE TREATMENT FACILITY AS PER THE STAND ARDS PRESCRIBED BY THE ANDHRA PRADESH POLLUTION CONTROL BOA RD; (C) PROVIDE PIPED WATER TO THE PARK NOT LATER THAN 12 M ONTHS FROM THE DATE HEREOF ITA NO.101/HYD/10 M/S.SHAPOORJI PALLONJI BIOTECH PARK P.LTD.HYD 5 (D) PROVIDE SUCH OTHER COMMON FACILITIES LIKE DRAINAGE STRE ET LIGHTING AND SECURITY FOR BIOTECH PARK AS A WHOLE AND (E) PROVIDE FREE LAND TO AN EXTENT OF ABOUT 3 ACRES TO TH E ANDHRA PRADESH TRANSMISSION CO.(APTRANSCO) FOR SETTING UP A SUBSTATION TO THE BIOTECH PARK. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN ITS AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FO R THE PREVIOUS YEAR ENDED 31.3.2005 ASSESSEE HAD MENTIONED IN THE NOT ES TO ACCOUNTS THAT NO REVENUE HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED SINCE THE ASSESSE E WAS MANDATED TO SELL THE PLOTS IN A FULLY DEVELOPED STAGE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER HELD THE SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE SALE OF TWO P LOTS AS LIABLE TO TAX IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 ITSELF AS CA PITAL GAINS EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT CARRYING THE ASSET AS A CAP ITAL ASSET AND CONSEQUENTLY NO CAPITAL GAINS AROSE TO BE ASSESSED AS SUCH IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS OBLIGED IN TERMS OF THE MOU IT HAS ENTERED INTO WITH THE STATE GOVERNMENT TO DELIVER THE PLOTS TO THE BUYERS IN SUCH A STATE NOT ONLY WITHIN THE PLOT BUT ALSO ALL THE COMMON FACILITIES ASSURE D AT THE TIME OF SALE OR MOU. FURTHER BY THE END OF THE PREVIOUS YEA R THE ASSESSEE WAS YET TO COMPLETE ITS OBLIGATIONS TO THE BUYERS AND TH E RISKS AND REWARDS ARE NOT YET TRANSFERRED ON THE SAID SALE OF PRO PERTY. HENCE THE ASSESSEE AS RIGHTLY HELD BY THE CIT (A) WAS JUSTIFIE D IN NOT RECOGNIZING THE REVENUE. FURTHER LEARNED COUNSEL SUB MITTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF SETTING UP OF A BIO- TECH PARK INVOLVING VARIOUS ACTIVITIES FROM THE DRAWING BOARD ST AGE TO ESTABLISHING HI-TECH SOPHISTICATED SCIENTIFIC EQUIPMENT OR FACILITIES IT WOULD BE TOO SIMPLISTIC TO TREAT THE SALES MADE BY THE A SSESSEE AS RESULTING IN CAPITAL GAINS THAT TOO IN THE VERY YEAR OF SALE NOTWITHSTANDING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS CONTAINED IN T HE SALE DEED ITA NO.101/HYD/10 M/S.SHAPOORJI PALLONJI BIOTECH PARK P.LTD.HYD 6 AND THE MOU WHICH OBLIGATED THE ASSESSEE TO CARRY OUT VARIOUS WORKS WITHIN THE PLOTS AND ALSO COMMON FOR THE ENTIRE PARK BEFORE HANDING OVER DELIVERY OF THE PLOTS TO THE BUYERS. IT IS FURT HER SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE REVENUE AS EVIDENT FROM THE GROUNDS OF ITS AP PEAL IS NOT CONTENDING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO CAPITAL GAINS TAX PRESENT APPEAL IS MERELY OF ACADEMIC NATURE AND IS REVENUE NEU TRAL SINCE EVEN IF THE SALE PROCEEDS ARE ASSESSED TO TAX IN THE ASSESSMENT YE AR UNDER APPEAL IT WOULD RESULT ASSESSMENT ONLY ON A FIGURE OF LOSS. HE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT MERE RECEIPT OF MONEY BY THE ASSESSEE WOUL D NOT AMOUNT TO ACCRUAL OF INCOME AND IN SUPPORT OF THIS PROP OSITION HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS AMONG OTHERS- (A) E.D.SASSOON & COMPANY LTD. V/S. CIT( 26 ITR 27)-SC (B) MAHINDRA HOLIDAY 39 SOT 438 (CHENNAI)-(SB) (C) LAKSHMINARAYANA FILMS V/S. CIT (244 ITR 344)-MAD HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE CONCEPT OF MATCHING PRINCIPLE SHOULD BE FOLLOWED AND ACCORDINGLY WHEN EXPENSES SHOULD BE RECOGNI SED WHEN THE OBLIGATIONS ARE INCURRED AND OFFSET AGAINST THE RE COGNISED REVENUES WHICH WERE GENERATED FROM THOSE EXPENSES NO M ATTER WHEN CASH IS RECEIVED. IN SUPPORT OF THIS PROPOSITION HE PLA CED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS- (A) TAPARIA TOOLS LTD. V/S. JCIT(260 ITR 102)-BOM. (B) CIT V/S BUILAHARI INVESTMENTS (299 ITR 1)-SC (C) CALCUTTA CO. LTD. V/S. CIT (37 ITR 1)-SC (D) MADRAS INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION LIMITED V/S. CIT(225 ITR 802)-SC (E) JK INDUSTRIES LTD. V/S. UNION OF INDIA (297 ITR 176)-S C ITA NO.101/HYD/10 M/S.SHAPOORJI PALLONJI BIOTECH PARK P.LTD.HYD 7 LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF AN ASSESSEE CAN BE REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ONLY I N CASE HE IS NOT SATISFIED ABOUT THE CORRECTNESS AND COMPLETENESS OF TH E ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER IN THE PRESENT CASE THE RE IS NO SUCH FINDING BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HE HAS REJECTED TH E BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS WELL AS THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING WITHOUT GIVIN G ANY LOGICAL OR RATIONAL REASONING. HE SUBMITTED THE ASSESSEE HAS FOLLO WED A WELL RECOGNIZED METHOD OF ACCOUNTING AND AS SUCH THE ASSESSING OFF ICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. HE SU BMITTED THAT IT IS FOR THE DEPARTMENT TO CONSIDER WHETHER THERE ARE SUFFICIENT GROUNDS OR MATERIALS FOR REJECTING A METHOD OF ACCOUNTIN G REGULARLY EMPLOYED BY AN ASSESSEE AND IT IS NOT FOR THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING FOLLOWED BY HIM OUGHT NOT T O BE REJECTED. IN THIS BEHALF HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF TH E JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S. MARGADARSI CHIT FUNDS (P) LTD. (155 ITR 442). HE HAS FILED DETAILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS RE ITERATING THE ABOVE ARGUMENTS AND HAS ALSO FILED COPIES OF VARIOUS D ECISIONS RELIED UPON BY HIM. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. WE HAVE GONE THROUG H THE DETAILED PAPER-BOOKS FILED BY THE PARTIES AND PLETHORA OF DECISI ONS CITED BEFORE US. UNDISPUTED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS E NGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DEVELOPING A BIOTECH PARK AND IN TERMS O F THE MOU IT ENTERED INTO WITH THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH A S ALSO AS PER THE TERMS OF THE SALE DEED EXECUTED BY IT WITH THE BUY ERS TO WHOM THE ASSESSEE SOLD THE PLOTS IN QUESTION DURING THE PREVIOUS YE AR UNDER CONSIDERATION THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS OBLIGED TO CARRY ON VA RIOUS DEVELOPMENTAL WORKS NOT ONLY WITHIN THE SOLD PLOTS BUT ALSO TO PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON FACILITIES FOR THE ENTIRE PARK AND TH EN ONLY DELIVER THE ITA NO.101/HYD/10 M/S.SHAPOORJI PALLONJI BIOTECH PARK P.LTD.HYD 8 POSSESSION OF THE PLOTS SOLD TO THE PARTIES. THAT BEING S O ASSESSEE WAS JUSTIFIED IN POSTPONING THE RECOGNITION OF THE INCOM E ON THE SALE OF PLOTS TILL THE DELIVERY OF THE PLOTS TAKES PLACE AFTER THE DEVELOPMENT WORKS ARE OVER. THE AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF T HE ASSESSEE TOGETHER WITH THE NOTES THEREUNDER CLEARLY CORROBORATE WITH THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF HAVING DEFERRED THE RECOGNITION OF IN COME IN RESPECT OF THE SALE OF PLOTS DURING THE YEAR. FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE NATURE OF BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE CLEARLY INDICATES THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HOLDING THE PLOTS IN QUESTION AS ITS STOCK IN TRA DE AND NOT AS A CAPITAL ASSET AND CONSEQUENTLY NO CAPITAL GAINS WOULD HAVE RESULTED TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE SALE OF SUCH PLOTS AND AS CO RRECTLY URGED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SINCE IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL THAT THE ASSESSEE W AS LIABLE TO CAPITAL GAINS TAX IN RESPECT OF SALE PROCEEDS RECEIVED ON T HE SALE OF THE TWO PLOTS DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL THE PRESENT A PPEAL IS MERELY OF ACADEMIC NATURE. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA S NOT GIVEN ANY LOGICAL OR VALID REASONS FOR REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. HE CONSIDERED THE MATTER WITH A SUSPICION AS TO TH E INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IN NOT RECOGNISING THE REVENU E IN RESPECT OF THE SALE OF TWO PLOTS SOLD DURING THE YEAR OBSERVING TH AT THE ASSESSEE APPARENTLY HAS DONE SO TO GET AWAY WITH DEDUCTION UNDE R S.80IA OF THE ACT IN THE SUCCEEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR AS IT FULFILLED THE CONDITIONS FOR SUCH A DEDUCTION IN THAT YEAR ONLY. IN THE CASE O N HAND THE ASSESSEE WAS OBLIGATED BY THE MOU IT HAD ENTERED WITH TH E GOVERNMENT AND BY THE SALE DEED IT HAS EXECUTED IN F O UR OF THE BUYERS OF THE PLOTS AS WELL TO CARRY ON SEVERAL DEVELOP MENTAL ACTIVITIES NOT ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE PLOTS SOLD BUT ALSO BY WAY O F PROVISION OF COMMON FACILITIES FOR THE BIOTECH PARK BEING DEVELOPED BY IT AS A WHOLE SO AS TO MAKE THE PLOTS IN QUESTION FIT FOR BEIN G READILY USED FOR THE BUSINESS OF THE BUYERS. WE FURTHER AGREE WITH THE CIT (A) THAT THE ITA NO.101/HYD/10 M/S.SHAPOORJI PALLONJI BIOTECH PARK P.LTD.HYD 9 SALE DEEDS EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT GIVE RISE TO ANY INCOME ASSESSABLE TO TAX DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDER ATION SINCE SUCH INCOME WAS CHARGED WITH SEVERAL OBLIGATIONS WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS TO DISCHARGE BEFORE THE DELIVERY OF PLOTS TO T HE BUYERS IN TERMS OF THE SALE DEEDS ITSELF. CONSIDERING TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE IMP UGNED ORDER OF THE CIT (A). WE ACCORDINGLY UPHOLD THE SAME AND REJ ECT THE GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL. 9. IN THE RESULT REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 31.1.2011 SD/- SD/- (G.C.GUPTA) (AKBER BASHA) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DT/- 31ST JANUARY 2011 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S. SHAPOORJI PALLONJI BIOTECH PARK P. LTD. A-13 GROUND FLOOR R.K.NIWAS STREET NO.3 INDIAN AIRLINE S COLONY BEGUMPET HYDERABAD. 2. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE -3(1) HYDE RABAD . 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) TIRUPATI. 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX TIRUPATI. 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ITAT HYDERABAD. B.V.S.