Kumar Housing Corporation Ltd.,, Pune v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax,,

ITA 1170/PUN/2015 | 2011-2012
Pronouncement Date: 23-11-2017 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 117024514 RSA 2015
Assessee PAN AACCS9537K
Bench Pune
Appeal Number ITA 1170/PUN/2015
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 2 day(s)
Appellant Kumar Housing Corporation Ltd.,, Pune
Respondent Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax,,
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 23-11-2017
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Tags No record found
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 23-11-2017
Date Of Final Hearing 07-11-2017
Next Hearing Date 07-11-2017
Assessment Year 2011-2012
Appeal Filed On 21-08-2015
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A PUNE BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI AM . / ITA NO. 1432 /P U N/20 1 4 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 1 0 - 1 1 THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 6 PUNE . / APPELLANT VS. KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD. ( KUMAR HOUSING CORPORATION PVT. LTD. MERGED INTO KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD. ) 10 TH FLOOR KUMAR BUSINESS CENTRE (KBC) OPP PUNE CENTRA BUND GARDEN ROAD PUNE - 411001 . / RESPONDENT PAN: AACCS9537K . / ITA NO. 1463 /P U N/20 14 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010 - 11 KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD. (KUMAR HOUSING CORPORATION PVT. LTD. MERGED INTO KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.) 10 TH FLOOR KUMAR BUSINESS CENTRE (KBC) OPP PUNE CENTRA BUND GARDEN ROAD PUNE - 411001 . / APPELLANT PAN: AACCS9537K VS. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 6 PUNE . / RESPONDENT 2 ITA NOS.1432 & 1463/PUN/2014 ITA NOS.1165 & 1170/PUN/2015 . / ITA NO. 1165 /P U N/20 15 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011 - 12 THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 14 PUNE . / APPELLANT VS. KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD. (KUMAR HOUSING CORPORATION PVT. LTD. MERGED INTO KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.) 10 TH FLOOR KUMAR BUSINESS CENTRE (KBC) OPP PUNE CENTRA BUND GARDEN ROAD PUNE - 411001 . / RESPONDENT PAN: AACCS9537K . / ITA NO. 1170 /P U N/20 15 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011 - 12 KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD. (KUMAR HOUSING CORPORATION PVT. LTD. MERGED INTO KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.) 10 TH FLOOR KUMAR BUSINESS CENTRE (KBC) OPP PUNE CENTRA BUND GARDEN ROAD PUNE - 411001 . / APPELLANT PAN: AACCS9537K VS. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 6 PUNE . / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NIKHIL PATHAK REVENUE BY : S /S HRI RAJEEV KUMAR CIT & AJAY MODI JCIT / DATE OF HEARING : 07 . 1 1 .2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 2 3 . 1 1 .2017 / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA JM: THE CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE A SSESSEE AND THE REVENUE ARE AGAINST SEPARATE ORDER S OF CIT(A) - III PUNE DATED 0 7 . 04 .201 4 AND CIT(A) - 7 PUNE DATED 25.05.2015 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2010 - 11 AND 20 1 1 - 1 2 AGAINST 3 ITA NOS.1432 & 1463/PUN/2014 ITA NOS.1165 & 1170/PUN/2015 RESPECTIVE ORDER S PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2 . THE CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. FIRST WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 WHERE THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.1 TO 5.2 HAVE BEEN RAISED. HOWEVER THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRESSED THE SAID GROUNDS OF APPEAL HENCE THE SAME ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 4 . THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 1170 /PUN/201 5 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND S OF APPEAL: - THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS ARE TAKEN WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER - ON FACTS AND IN LAW 1] THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE A SSESS E E WAS NOT ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEPRECIATION OF RS. 1 6 55 050/ - (16 55 050+27328) CLAIMED BY THE ASSE S S E E IN RESPECT OF THE ASSETS LEASED TO KUMAR CITY CLUB PVT. LTD. 1.1] THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSE E WAS NOT ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM DEPRECIATION IN RESPECT OF THE CAPITAL ASSETS IN THE FORM OF CLUB HOUSE INCLUDING SWIMMING POOL' AND GYMNASIUM LEASED OUT TO KUMAR CITY CLUB PVT. LTD. ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSE E HAD NOT USED TH E SAID ASSETS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ITS BUSINESS AND A CCORDINGLY THE DEPRECIATION WAS NOT ALLOWABLE. 1.2] THE LEARNED CIT (A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ASSESSE E HAD USED THE SAID ASSETS FOR PURPOSE OF ITS BUSINESS AND THEREFORE THE DEPRECIATION WAS RIGHTLY CLAIMED BY ASSESSE E COMPANY . 2] THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCES U/S 36( 1 )(III) OF RS.2 36 215/ - 2.1] THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN DISALLOWING THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE PERTAINING TO THE INTEREST FREE ADVANCE GIVEN TO VARIOUS PARTIES ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSE E HAD DIVERT ED BORROWED FUND FOR MAKING INTEREST FREE ADVANCES AND HENCE THE INTEREST ATTRIBUTABLE TO SUCH ADVANCES WAS NOT ALLOWABLE AS A DEDUCTION U/S 36(1)(III) OF TH E ACT. 2.2] THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSE E HAD UTILIZED BORROWED FUNDS FOR THE PURPOSES OF MAKING INTEREST FREE ADVANCES TO 4 ITA NOS.1432 & 1463/PUN/2014 ITA NOS.1165 & 1170/PUN/2015 VARIOUS PARTIES INCLUDING SISTER CONCERNS TOTALING TO RS.73 15 83 143 AND HENCE THE INTEREST ATTRIBUTABLE TO SUCH ADVANCE WAS NOT ALLOWABLE AS A BUSINESS DEDUCTION IN THIS YEAR. 2.3] TH E LEARNED CIT (A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE SAID INTEREST FREE AMOUNT WERE ADVANCE BY THE ASSESSE E TO VARIOUS PARTIES INCLUDING SISTER CONCERNS FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS AND HENCE THE LEARNED CIT (A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING THE INTEREST. 2.4] THE LEARNED CIT (A) THE FURTHER ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE ASSESSE E HAD SUFFICIENT INTEREST FREE FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH IT WHICH WERE MORE THAN THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST FREE ADVANCES MADE BY THE ASSESSE E AND ACCORDINGLY THERE WAS NO REASON TO MA KE ANY DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST. 5. FURTHER IN ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRESSED THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.1 TO 1.2 AND HENCE THE SAME ARE ALSO DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 6. THE SECOND ISSUE WHICH IS RAISED VIDE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.2 IS AGAINST DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER SECTION 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT AT RS.2 36 215/ - . 7. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT SIMILAR DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE IN EARLIER YEARS AND THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 VIDE PARAS 9 AND 10 SET ASIDE THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER. 8. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE FAIRLY ADMITTED THE SAME. 9. WE FIND THAT SIMILAR ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT AROSE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 AND THE TRIBUNAL VIDE PARAS 9 AND 10 HELD AS UNDER: - 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. TH E GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.1 TO 4 AND 5 TO 5.2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT PRESSED. HENCE THE SAME ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. THE REMAINING ISSUES ARISING IN THE CROSS APPEALS BEFORE US ARE SQUARELY COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES O WN CASE IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007 - 08 AND 2008 - 09. THE TRIBUNAL 5 ITA NOS.1432 & 1463/PUN/2014 ITA NOS.1165 & 1170/PUN/2015 IN ITA NOS.1190 & 1191/PN/2013 AND 1271 & 1272/PN/2013 VIDE ORDER DATED 12.08.2016 HAD DECIDED THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE UNDER SECTION 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT VIDE PARA 9. 2 WHEREIN THE MATTER WAS SET - ASIDE TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO ASCERTAIN THE FINANCIAL POSITION OF ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF GIVING ADVANCES THAT WHETHER IT HAD INTEREST FREE FUNDS AVAILABLE AT THE RELEVANT TIME. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE TRIB UNAL I.E. VIDE PARA 9.2 READ AS UNDER: - 9.2 W E HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE REPRESENTATIVES OF RIVAL SIDES. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS UPHELD THE FINDINGS OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN DISALLOWING THE INTEREST U/S. 36(1)(III) OF TH E ACT ON THE AMOUNTS ADVANCES TO VARIOUS PARTIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT THE AMOUNTS WERE ADVANCED TO THE SISTER CONCERNS FOR NON - BUSINESS PURPOSE AND THERE IS NO BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE FROM SUCH ADVANCES EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS DISTINGUISHED THE DECISION OF HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. RELIANCE POWER UTILITY LTD. (SUPRA) ON FACTS. FROM THE PERUSAL OF IMPUGNED ORDER WE OBSERVE THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS ADVANCED MONEY TOWARDS SHARE APPLICATION MONEY TO PUNE MUMBAI REALTY PVT. LTD. AND RIVER VIEW PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. LONG TIME BACK. ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS ASSERTED THAT FUNDS HAVE BEEN ADVANCED TO THE SISTER CONCERN FOR HOLDING THE STAKE BUT FOR QUITE LONG PERIOD THE AMOUNT IS SHOWN AS SHARE APPLICATION MONEY PENDING ALLOTMENT. THUS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE FUNDS HAVE BEEN ADVANCED FOR THE PURPOSE OF STRATEGIC INVESTMENT SEEMS TO BE FARCE. IN SO FAR AS ADVANCES TO MR. RAJESH T IWARI IS CONCERNED NO EXPLANATIONS WHATSOEVER HAS BEEN FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND NO BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY HAS BEEN SHOWN. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING OWN INTEREST FREE FUNDS SUFFICIENT TO COVER THE INVESTMENTS AS PER THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31 - 03 - 2008. HOWEVER IT IS NOT EVIDENT FROM THE RECORDS AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING SUFFICIENT OWN INTEREST FREE FUNDS FOR MAKING INVESTMENT AT THE TIME OF GIVING ADVANCES. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE NOT VERIFIED TH IS FACT WHICH IS MATERIAL FOR ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE. THUS IN VIEW OF THE ABSENCE OF VITAL INFORMATION WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THIS ISSUE NEEDS A REVISIT TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO ASCERTAIN THE FINANCIAL POSITION OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF GIVING ADVANCES. IN CASE OWN INTEREST FREE FUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE SUFFICIENT TO COVER THE ADVANCES AT THE TIME OF MAKING SUCH ADVANCES NO DISALLOWANCE SHOULD BE MADE IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. RELIANCE POWER UTILITY LTD. (SUPRA). ACCORDINGLY GROUND NO. 3 RAISED IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 10. THE ISSUE ARISING IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN EARLIER YEARS AND EVEN THE ADVANCES WERE MADE IN EARLIER YEARS AND FOLLOWING THE SAME PARITY OF REASONING WE REMIT THIS ISSUE ALSO BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO DETERMINE THE AVAILABILITY OF INTEREST FREE FU NDS AND ALSO TO WORK OUT THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT IF ANY IN LINE WITH DIRECTIONS OF TRIBUNAL IN EARLIER YEAR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL AFFORD REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.6 TO 6.3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE THUS PARTLY ALLOWED AS INDICATED ABOVE. 6 ITA NOS.1432 & 1463/PUN/2014 ITA NOS.1165 & 1170/PUN/2015 10. IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ALSO THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED T HAT TOTAL SECURED FUNDS AS ON 31.03.2011 WERE RS.107.90 CRORES AND THE FINANCIAL OUTGO WAS RS.16.84 CRORES. THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE ADVANCES TO GROUP CONCERNS AT RS.73.15 CRORES. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT IT HAD MADE STRATEGIC INVESTMENT IN GROUP COMPANI ES BY WAY OF ADVANCES AND SHARE APPLICATION MONEY WAS REJECTED AND THE INTEREST ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ADVANCES MADE TO THE GROUP CONCERNS WAS DISALLOWED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF AVERAGE RATE I.E. RS.2 36 615/ - . THE CIT(A) UPHELD THE SAID ADDITION SINCE SIMILAR ADDITION WAS MADE IN EARLIER YEARS. 11. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE ARISING IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE AS IN THE EARLIER YEARS WHERE ALSO THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE SIMILAR ADVANCES TO THE SISTER CONCERNS AND ALSO MADE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY. FOLLOWING THE SAME PARITY O F REASONING WE REMIT THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO DETERMINE THE AVAILABILITY OF INTEREST FREE FUNDS AND TO WORK OUT THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT IF ANY IN LINE WITH DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN EARLIER YEA RS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL AFFORD REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE AND DETERMINE THE DISALLOWANCE IF ANY ACCORDINGLY. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO .2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THUS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 12. NOW COMING TO THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE WHEREIN IN BOTH THE APPEALS THE REVENUE HAS RAISED SIMILAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL I.E. AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA(4)(III) OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE PROJECT OF ASSESSEE WAS NOT NOTIFIED BY THE GOVERNMENT FOR CLAIMING THE AFORESAID DEDUCTION. 7 ITA NOS.1432 & 1463/PUN/2014 ITA NOS.1165 & 1170/PUN/2015 13. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD POINTED OUT THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007 - 08 AND 2008 - 09 HAS DELIBERATED U PON THE ISSUE VIDE PARAS 11 TO 13 . FURTHER T HE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 IN ITA NOS.1290/PUN/2013 AND 1291/PUN/2013 RELYING ON EARLIER ORDER VIDE ORDER DATED 12.07.2017 HAS HELD AS UNDER: - 11. NOW COMING TO THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY T HE REVENUE WHEREIN THE REVENUE IS FIRST AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA(4)(III) OF THE ACT. THE TRIBUNAL HAD CONSIDERED VARIOUS ASPECTS OF THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE AND HAD NOTED THE FACTUAL ASPECTS AND HAD RELIE D ON EARLIER DECISION OF THE PUNE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN M/S. KOLTE PATIL DEVELOPERS LTD. VS. DCIT IN ITA NOS.1411 TO 1415/PN/2013 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003 - 04 2005 - 06 & 2007 - 08 TO 2009 - 10 AND IN ITA NOS.1478 TO 1483/PN/2013 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004 - 05 TO 2009 - 10 ORDER DATED 20.02.2015. THE TRIBUNAL IN M/S. KOLTE PATIL DEVELOPERS LTD. VS. DCIT (SUPRA) NOTED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 AS INDUSTRIAL PARK WAS NOT COMPLETE AS ON 31.03.2007 AS THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE WAS OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM LOCAL AUTHORITY ON 09.05.2007 AND ALSO THE INDUSTRIAL PARK DID NOT FULFILL THE CRITERIA OF LOCATING MINIMUM NUMBER OF 30 INDUSTRIAL UNITS. THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE VIDE PARA 6.6 AT PAGE 18 OF THE ORDER NOTED THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN M/S. KOLTE PATIL DEVELOPERS LTD. VS. DCIT (SUPRA) AND REPRODUCED THE SAME AT PAGES 19 TO 21 OF THE ORDER AND OBSERVED AS UNDER: - . IN THE PR ESENT CASE THE PROJECT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS INITIALLY APPROVED UNDER IPS 2002 ON 15 - 02 - 2005. THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA(4)(III) IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 WHICH WAS ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT COMPLETE THE PROJECT WIT HIN THE TIME FRAME SPECIFIED IN IPS 2002 I.E. 31 - 03 - 2006. THE ASSESSEE APPLIED FOR NOTIFICATION OF THE PROJECT UNDER IPS 2008. THE PROJECT WAS NOTIFIED BY CBDT ON 09 - 07 - 2010. AFTER NOTIFICATION OF THE PROJECT UNDER IPS 2008 THE ELIGIBILITY OF DEDUCTION HAS TO BE SEEN WITH RESPECT TO THE NEW SCHEME. THUS IN VIEW OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LD. DR THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U /S. 80IA(4)(III) IN ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER APPEAL. 12. FURTHER SECOND OBJECTION OF THE REVENUE OF NOT ESTABLISHING 30 UNITS WAS ALSO CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE AND FOLLOWING THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN M/S. KOLTE PATIL D EVELOPERS LTD. VS. DCIT (SUPRA) VIDE PARA 6.7 REFERENCE WAS MADE TO THE SAID DECISION AT PAGES 22 TO 25 OF THE ORDER AND HELD AS UNDER: - THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. KOLTE PATIL DEVELOPERS LTD. VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (SUPR A) FURTHER STRENGTHENS THE CASE OF ASSESSEE IN ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA(4)(III) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY DEPARTMENT AGAINST ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA(4)(III) TO THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 13. WE ARE MAKING RELIAN CE ON THE SAID DECISION OF TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE BUT FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY ONLY RELEVANT PARAS ARE BEING REPRODUCED AS AGAINST COMPLETE FACTUAL AND LEGAL ASPECTS NOTED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND REFERRED TO 8 ITA NOS.1432 & 1463/PUN/2014 ITA NOS.1165 & 1170/PUN/2015 IN THE SAID ORDER. FOLLOWING THE SAME PARI TY OF REASONING WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA(4)(III) OF THE ACT. 14. THE ISSUE ARISING IN THE PRESENT APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN EARLIER YEARS AND FOLLOWING THE SAME PARITY OF REASONING WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE. THE ASSESSEE IS ENTIT LED TO CLAIM THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA(4)(III) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY WE DISMISS THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 15 . IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF ASSESSEE RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 IS DISMISSED AND APPEAL OF ASSESSEE RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND BOTH THE APPEALS OF REVENUE RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010 - 11 AND 2011 - 12 ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 2 3 R D DAY OF NOVEM B ER 201 7 . SD/ - SD/ - (ANIL CHATURVEDI) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE ; DATED : 2 3 R D NOVEM BER 201 7 . G G C C V V S S R R / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT ; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. ( ) / THE CIT (A) - III / CIT(A) - 7 PUNE ; 4. THE CIT - III / PR.CIT - 6 PUNE ; 5. / DR A ITAT PUNE; 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY / ITAT PUNE