Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad
Jayadarshini Housing Pvt.Ltd., Hyd, ... vs Assessee on 26 March, 2014
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCHES "A" : HYDERABAD
BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND
SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA.No.273/Hyd/2011
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Jayadarshini Housing P. vs. ACIT, C.C. 5
Ltd. Hyderabad Hyderabad
PAN AAACJ-5050-E
(Appellant) (Respondent)
ITA.No.393 & 394/Hyd/2011
Assessment Year 2005-2006 & 2006-2007
ACIT, C.C. 5 vs. Jayadarshini Housing P. Ltd.
Hyderabad Hyderabad
PAN AAACJ-5050-E
(Appellant) (Respondent)
For Assessee : Mr. S. Rama Rao
For Revenue : Mr. P. Somasekhar Reddy
Date of Hearing : 26.03.2014
Date of pronouncement : 16.05.2014
ORDER
PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH, A.M.
These three appeals by Assessee and Revenue for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 are against the orders of CIT(A)-VII, Hyderabad dated 27.12.2010. Revenue is aggrieved on the allowance of deduction under section 80IB by CIT(A) in both the assessment years whereas assessee is 2 ITA.No.273, 393, 394 & 395/Hyd/2011 M/s. Jayadarshini Housing P. Ltd. Hyderabad.
aggrieved on the confirmation of addition of Rs.1.78 crores by CIT(A) in A.Y. 2005-06.
2. We have heard learned D.R. and learned Counsel and perused the paper books placed on record by both parties.
3. Briefly stated, assessee-company is engaged in real estate and construction business. During the year, company purchased land and sold plots after undertaking development works. There were search and seizure operations under section 132 on 07.11.2006 and proceedings are consequent to that. In the proceedings, A.O. consequent to admission by Managing Director of the Company of payment of money outside books in purchase of lands and also admission by recipient, an addition of Rs.1.78 crores was made, even though the assessee subsequently denied the payments.
Issue of 80IB in AY2005-06 and 2006-07.
4. Assessee claimed deduction under section 80IB of Rs.1,88,00,917/- in A.Y. 2005-06 and Rs.45,64,600/- in A.Y. 2006-07 on the residential complex constructed and sold in the name of 'Jayadarshini Residency'. Assessing Officer asked for details. Assessee did not furnish complete details. Therefore, A.O. called for sale deeds and noticed that all the flats sold are above 1500 sft and exceeded the limits prescribed under the Act. Therefore, he denied the deduction.
5. Before Ld. CIT(A), assessee made detailed submissions and placed a table indicating that out of the 13 flats in each floor (5 floors), one flat was exceeding the limit whereas, the balance 12 flats are within the limits. In arriving at that calculation, assessee submitted that the super built-up 3 ITA.No.273, 393, 394 & 395/Hyd/2011 M/s. Jayadarshini Housing P. Ltd. Hyderabad.
area may be about 2300 sft, but 27.39% common area and 306 sq.ft car parking are to be excluded. Then the 'Built-up' area is less than 1500 sft. On that basis, it was submitted that the project satisfies the conditions. Relying on the principles laid down by M/s. Bengals Ambuja Housing Development Ltd. ITA.No.453/2006 of Hon'ble Kolkata High Court and ITAT decision in the case of ITO vs. AIR Developers (ITA.No.447/Nag/2007 dated 21.05.2008), assessee contended that proportionate deduction of sixty flats out of sixty five should be allowed.
6. Ld. CIT(A) considering the submissions decided in favour of assessee by stating as under :
"4 In response to the case posted for hearing, Sri S V Rao, CA. attended and discussed the case. With regard to the disallowance of Rs,1,88,00,917 u/s 80-IB of the I.T Act, 1961, it is submitted by the Authorized Representative that the appellant had undertaken projects called 'Jayadarshini Residency' wherein 65 flats in 3 buildings are constructed. Out of the 65 flats, 5 flats are having area of 1689.65 sq.ft each and all other 60 flats are having area below 1500 sq.ft each. Therefore, it is the argument of the Authorized Representative that the Assessing Officer could have utmost disallowed 80-IB(10) benefit with regard to 5 flats only whereas he should have allowed the benefit in case of 60 flats. Hence, it is argued by the Authorized Representative that in view of decision of Hon'ble Kolkata High Court and also in view of the decision of Hon'ble ITAT Nagpur Bench, the appellant should have been given proportionate deduction. The gist of the decision of the Hon'ble Kolkata High Court and ITAT, Nagpur Bench is as under :
"In the case of Bengal Ambuja Housing Development Ltd., Kolkata High Court in ITA.No. 453 of 2006 the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 05.1.2007 has held that 'it is a settled law that the view favourable to the assessee should be adopted. Section 80IB(10) is a beneficial provision and it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court In the case of 4 ITA.No.273, 393, 394 & 395/Hyd/2011 M/s. Jayadarshini Housing P. Ltd. Hyderabad.
Baja) Tempo Ltd., 196 ITR 188 that a beneficial provision should be interpreted liberally.
If an assessee has developed a housing project, wherein the majority of the residential units has a built-up area of less than 1500 sq. ft. I.e. the limit prescribed by section 80- IB(10) and only a few residential units are exceeding the built-up area of 1500 sq ft, there would be no justification to disallow the entire deduction under sec.80-IB (10). It would be fair and reasonable to allow the deduction on proportionate basis i.e. on the profit derived from the construction of the residential unit which has a built-up area of less than 1500 sq ft the limit prescribed under sec. 80-IB (10).
Further, it was held by the Hon'ble ITAT, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in the case of ITO vs. AIR Developers, Appeal No.ITA No.447/ Nag/2007, decided on. May 21,2008 that if an assessee has developed a housing project, wherein the majority of the residential units has a built up area of less than 1500 sq. ft. i.e. the limit prescribed by sec.80-IB(10) and only a few residential units are exceeding the built-up area of 1500 sq. ft., there would be no justification to disallow the entire deduction under sec.80IB(10); it would be fair and reasonable to allow the deduction on proportionate basis in that case.
The ratio of the above decisions of the ITA T and Kolkata High Court would be squarely applicable to the assessee company. In view of the above the assessee company humbly requests your good offices to kindly delete the addition of Rs.1,88,00,917 made by the Assessing Officer as they are not based on actual facts but were based on certain assumption made on the common area, and requests your good offices to allow the deduction u/s 80-IB partially by disallowing the profits derived on the Units exceeding 1500 sq.ft."
4.1. In view of the above, it is the argument of the Authorized Representative that the appellant should have been given benefit of deduction u/s 80-IB(10) of the Act. The submission made by the Authorized Representative has been considered. The details furnished with regard to the claim of the appellant have been perused. It is seen that out of 65 flats constructed, only 5 flats each are exceeding the 5 ITA.No.273, 393, 394 & 395/Hyd/2011 M/s. Jayadarshini Housing P. Ltd. Hyderabad.
area of 1500 sq.ft whereas the others are within 1500 sq.ft area. Therefore, considering the details with regard to the facts constructed, I am of the view that out of 65 flats only 5 are above 1500 sq.ft. area, therefore, the Assessing Officer is not justified to deny the benefit of deduction u/s 80-IB for the entire project completed for the assessment year under consideration. Therefore. following the above decision of Honble High Court and ITAT, the Assessing Officer is directed to give proportionate benefit of deduction for 60 flats out of 65 flats constructed. Therefore, this ground of appeal is partly allowed".
7. Learned D.R. contended that assessee has not furnished any information before A.O. and CIT(A) without examining the details allowed the deduction. He referred to the order of A.O.
8. Ld. Counsel, however, supported the order of the CIT(A) both on facts and law.
9. We have considered the issue and examined the rival contentions. We are not in agreement with order of CIT(A). As can be seen from the order, assessee has not furnished any details of 'Built-up' area before A.O. A.O. has to obtain the sale deeds to ascertain the built-up area. Ld. CIT(A) without referring the issue on remand for verification of built up area, simply allowed the deduction, without verification of facts. Not only that he allowed proportionate deduction at sixty/sixty five flats in both years, without restricting to the actual profit on sale of flats.
9.1. We also notice from the annual reports that the assessee has shown 'contract receipts' only in the P & L account. Development of project and sale of apartments were not reflected as such. The plans placed on record indicate that the plans are approved in the name of Alluri Gangaraju owner 6 ITA.No.273, 393, 394 & 395/Hyd/2011 M/s. Jayadarshini Housing P. Ltd. Hyderabad.
thereon. So the development agreements and sale agreements require verification to determine that assessee has developed the 'project'. Another issue required to be examined is the exclusion of 'common area' and 'car park' area from the built- up area. As per the plan on record, total common area is 27.39% including car park area. However, assessee excluded both independently. Assessee has shown sixty five car parking areas at 306 sq. feet each in the table furnished (at page 19, 20 of paper book) to the CIT(A). The entire car park area, if totaled comes to more than the stilt area approved in the plan (i.e., 121.03 sq. meters). Therefore, we are of the opinion that the CIT(A) erred in allowing the proportionate allowance without subjecting the details furnished to verification. It is also noticed that assessee claimed deduction of Rs.1,88,00,917/- in A.Y. 2005-06 whereas, profit as per P & L account was only Rs.1,15,99,172/-. Likewise, in A.Y. 2006-07 assessee claimed deduction of Rs.45,64,600/- on a profit of Rs.3,35,30,385/-. The actual profit working of the project, excluding other real estate transactions is not on record as copy of 3CB reports were not placed in paper books. This also requires verification. Therefore, we set aside the orders of authorities on the issue and restore the issue of claim of 80IB afresh to the file of A.O. to examine the eligibility and determine the amount of profit, if assessee is found eligible for deduction under section 80IB. Assessing Officer is directed to examine above aspects by giving due opportunity to the assessee and decide afresh after ascertaining the facts and according to law. The grounds of Revenue in both appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
7ITA.No.273, 393, 394 & 395/Hyd/2011 M/s. Jayadarshini Housing P. Ltd. Hyderabad.
Issue of addition of Rs.1.78 Crores :
10. The facts leading to addition are as follows. During the course of search, it was found that the company has purchased a vacant site situated at Kanuru in Vijayawada and Ac. 20.00 of agricultural land at Medchal from one Sri Peddu Shankar Rao during FY 2004-05. The vacant site at Kanuru was purchased for a registered price of Rs.l.07 crores in cash and a consideration of Rs.15 lakhs has been paid for the agricultural land at Medchal.
However, during recording of statement of Sri G. Saibabu, Managing Director of the company, it was stated that the two transactions above were negotiated together and the company has paid an amount of Rs.3 crores in cash for the two properties. It was further explained that there was no exact bifurcation and the value recorded in books was Rs.1.22 crores for both the properties. It was stated that the difference amount of Rs.1.78 crores was also paid in cash by the company and it was admitted as undisclosed income for the FY 2004-05. However in the return of Income filed u/s 153A, no amount as admitted was shown as income. So G. Saibabu, Managing Director when confronted stated that at the time of search proceedings, it was informed to him that payment of Rs.3 crores was made which has been confirmed by the other party and therefore he has admitted the undisclosed Income. Subsequently, enquiry was made with the other party and on verification of records of the company it was found that no payment over and above the recorded amount in books have been paid and hence no income was shown in the return filed.
10.1. It is seen from the statements recorded u/s 132{4) during the course of search that Sri G. Saibabu, Managing Director has confirmed time and again that payment of Rs.1.78 crores in cash was made over and above what has been recorded in books for the above transactions. During the 8 ITA.No.273, 393, 394 & 395/Hyd/2011 M/s. Jayadarshini Housing P. Ltd. Hyderabad.
course of search proceedings, Sri P. Shankar Rao has also confirmed that an amount of Rs.1.78 crores in cash was received over and above the registered amount. Assessee has filed a confirmation from Sri P. Shankar Rao that no amount over and above the registered value was received. AO was of the view that the admission of payment made of Rs.1.78 crores in cash in statement recorded u/s 132(4) on oath is in itself evidence as per provisions of the Act. The filing of confirmation from Sri P. Shankar Rao who has also admitted to have received the amount of cash of Rs. 1.78 crores is nothing but a self serving document and cannot be allowed in the light of evidence already available. Further, the introduction of entry for sale of club house and swimming pool also of a similar amount of Rs. 1.74 crores with out any actual sale to the subsidiary company, shows that payments were made over and above the registered price and it was tried to be covered up by introduction of entry of sale of assets. The amount paid in cash for purchase of Kannur land and agricultural land over and above the registered value at Rs. 1,78,000/- therefore was treated as unexplained investment and added to the income.
11. Assessee made following submissions before CIT(A) "During the course of the assessee company's Managing Director Mr.G. Saibabu was confronted that as per the information given by Sri Peddu Sankara Rao the total consideration was stated to be Rs.3 crores for both the properties.
It is respectfully submitted that in the course of search proceedings Mr.Saibabu was confronted on many issues as he is involved in the management of a number of group companies. In a state of confusion and panic and to buy peace with the department the assessee initially admitted about the receipt of Rs.3 crores without verifying the books and records and also due to the fact that it was claimed by the IT officials that the other party has admitted receipt of Rs.3 crores.
9ITA.No.273, 393, 394 & 395/Hyd/2011 M/s. Jayadarshini Housing P. Ltd. Hyderabad.
After verifying the books of accounts, it was clearly ascertained that no payment was made beyond Rs.1.22 crores. Further, the assessee company has also filed a letter of confirmation from the seller Sr. Peddu Sankara Rao, that no payment was received in excess of Rs.1.22 crores. Hence, the Managing Director Mr G. Saibabu has retracted from his statement during the course of assessment.
It is further respectfully submitted that according to Sec.158BB of the I.T Act, 1961 undisclosed income shall be the aggregate of the total Income of the previous years falling within the block period computed in accordance with the provisions of the Income tax Act, on the basis of the evidence found as a result of search or any other material or Information available with the Assessing Officer and relatable to the evidence found during the search.
In the instant case there was no evidence or material found during the course of search operations evidencing a receipt of Rs 1.78 crores in cash from Sri Peedu Sankara Rao. The addition of Rs. 1.78 crores was merely based on a statement by the Managing Director Mr. G. Saibabu which has been retracted and rebutted by Mr. G.Saibabu.
In a Similar case, the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT vs. K. Bhuvanendran and Others (2008) 303 ITR 235 (Mad) has held the Hon'ble High Court that the 'Statement recorded during the course of search operations could not be the basis for making any addition when the statement was not relatable to any seized material and also due to the fact that the assessee has subsequently retracted and rebutted.' In this case there was a search in the assessee's residential premises The assessee filed a return declaring an undisclosed income of Rs.1,48,500/-. The assessee did not specifically include a sum of Rs.23 lakhs as undisclosed income in the return even though he admitted the payment of Rs.23 lakhs over and above the amount disclosed in the sale deeds. Based on the admission, the Assessing Officer added the amount of Rs.23 lakhs as undisclosed income.
It was held by the Hon'b!e High Court that when the sale deed discloses a sale consideration, it is for the Revenue to show that what was disclosed in the sale deed is not the correct sale consideration. In this case the Revenue could not bring on record any material to show that the assessee has paid any money from 10 ITA.No.273, 393, 394 & 395/Hyd/2011 M/s. Jayadarshini Housing P. Ltd. Hyderabad.
his statement and there was no evidence or material found during the course of search'.
In the instant case of the assessee, the Assessing Officer has obtained copies of all seized documents and none of these documents supports the contention of the departments that the assessee has paid a sum of Rs. 1.78 crores over and above what was stated in document and recorded in the books. It is further submitted no evidence in support of department claim was shown to us in the course of assessment proceedings, except assessee's own statement.
In view of the above explanation, the assessee company humbly pleads that the addition of Rs.1.78 crores may kindly be deleted and save the assessee from undue hardship and financial stress.
12. Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order by stating as under:
"5.2 It may be seen that the both seller party and party who have bought the properties have argued for having paid and received sale consideration of Rs. 3 crores. The appellant company have recorded for Rs.1.22 crores only.
5.3 In view of the above observation of the Assessing Officer and also in view of the written submission furnished by the Authorized Representative, I am of the view that the Managing Director of the appellant company having agreed to have paid Rs.3 crores for the purchase of above two properties and also in view of the fact that other party also have agreed to have received an amount of Rs.3 crores as sale consideration. I am of the view that the Assessing Officer is justified to make the addition of difference amount of Rs.1.78 crores. Therefore, after verifying the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to confirm the addition made by the Assessing Officer".
13. Ld. Counsel submitted that there is no evidence whatsoever for making the addition, there is no incriminating material in the search and an admission by Managing Director cannot be taken as basis. He also submitted that assessee- Managing Director had filed an affidavit later withdrawing the statement. He relied on the principles laid down by Hon'ble 11 ITA.No.273, 393, 394 & 395/Hyd/2011 M/s. Jayadarshini Housing P. Ltd. Hyderabad.
Bombay High Court in the case of RR Gavit vs. Smt. Sherbanoo Hasan Daya & another 161 ITR 793 for the proposition that the admission under section 132(4) should not be taken cognizance in the absence of evidence. However, he fairly admitted that the addition made in the case of Sri P. Shankar Rao was confirmed by ITAT.
14. Learned D.R. defended the orders and submitted that source of various investments by Mr. P. Shankar Rao was the payment of on money and since corroborative evidence is available, the addition need to be sustained.
15. We have considered the rival contentions. As can be seen from the facts as stated above, the assessee's Managing Director was confronted with the statement of Mr. P. Shankara Rao and the assessee has admitted to have paid Rs. 1.78 crores vide statement dated 09.11.2006 whereas, search was conducted on 07.11.2006. Not only that subsequently, also further statements were recorded. Therefore, it cannot be said that assessee was in the state of utter confusion or not in a proper state of mind while making the statement to the department. Not only that by admitting the amounts in the course of search and not retracting immediately, assessee also successfully prevented the revenue authorities in further making the enquiries in this regard. Assessee by his conduct has forced the Revenue to stop its enquiries as assessee has admitted these amounts. It may be true that there is no incriminating material but admission by the assessee is to be accepted as a bonafide admission. The Hon'ble A.P. High Court in the case of Kermax Micro Systems India Ltd. vs. DCIT 362 ITR 13 considered similar situation of retraction and opined 12 ITA.No.273, 393, 394 & 395/Hyd/2011 M/s. Jayadarshini Housing P. Ltd. Hyderabad.
that there must be a distinction between admission and the evidence collected during the course of survey. This is a voluntary act of the assessee and if the assessee accepts the payment, there is no point or scope to collect further evidence or making any enquiry. Since assessee admitted in the course of search which was also confronted to the seller, It is to be accepted that assessee genuinely admitted payment of on- money and subsequent retraction is only to avoid the consequence of his admission of payment of on-money.
16. In this regard, the Hon'ble ITAT in ITA.No. 166 to 169, 179, 180 and 44/Hyd/2010 in the case of Mr. P. Shankar Rao (seller) has examined the issue and has adjudicated the same as under :
"33. With regard to the receipt of on money is concerned, we find that the search was conducted upon the residential premises of the assessee along with the business premises of M/s. Subhadarshi Chit Funds (P) Ltd., and Subhadarshi Estates on 07.11.2006 and during the course of search various incriminating materials were found suggesting the sale and purchase of land or properties outside the books of accounts.
34. With regard to the impugned properties i.e. 20 acre agricultural land at Ravalakool village and the land measuring 1930 sq. yards at Vijayawada, the buyer of the property Shri G. Sai Babu, Managing Director of Jaidarshini Housing Pvt. Ltd., was examined and in his statement recorded on 9.11.2006, much after the date of search has admitted categorically that he had paid Rs.1.78 crores to the assessee Shri P. Sankara Rao over and above the sale consideration recorded in the sale document. This statement of buyer was confronted to the assessee and in his statement recorded on 21.12.2006 the assessee has admitted the receipt of Rs.1.78 crores in excess of the registered value of the transactions of both the sales. The relevant question No.6 and its answer is extracted hereunder for the sake of reference :13
ITA.No.273, 393, 394 & 395/Hyd/2011 M/s. Jayadarshini Housing P. Ltd. Hyderabad.
"Q. It is seen from the statement of Sri Sai Babu, the Managing Director of JDHPL, he was paid around Rs.1.78 crores in excess of the registered value of the above said transactions towards sale consideration. Do you agree and have you recovered this amount?
Yes, I do confirm that I have received around Rs.1.78 crores in excess of the registered value of the transactions for both the sales. This was received in cash.
35. Since the statement of the assessee was recorded on 21.12.2006, much after the search i.e. on 07.11.2006, it cannot be said that the assessee was under the state of utter confusion or not in a proper state of mind while making the statement on account of pressure from the Department. The statement of the assessee could have been retracted even at the time of filing the return of income. The return of income was examined by the Assessing Officer and a questionnaire was issued on 28.1.2008 in which the Assessing Officer has raised a specific query as to why the additional income of Rs.1.78 crores was not offered to tax. The Assessing Officer has given time to the assessee for furnishing the details up to 18.2.2008 but despite of this notice the assessee did not come forward to retract from his earlier statement admitting the receipt of on money. Thereafter the Assessing Officer further issued a notice on 24.9.2008 asking the assessee again as to why the capital gain should not be worked out on the total consideration including the Rs.1.78 crores on money received by the assessee for the year under consideration. This notice was to be replied by 6.10.2010, but the assessee again did not come forward either to reply to that notice or to retract from the earlier statement. The assessment was to be completed before 31st December, 2008 and the assessee has filed an affidavit retracting from the earlier statement on 8.12.2008 stating therein that he has accepted the additional amount of Rs.1.78 crores because of utter confusion in understanding.
Nothing has been placed on record to justify or to explain as to why the assessee has not retracted from his earlier statement despite a query and the notices issued by the Assessing Officer, if his statement was recorded in utter confusion of mind. The explanation put forth by the assessee does not appear to be reasonable. Had it been 14 ITA.No.273, 393, 394 & 395/Hyd/2011 M/s. Jayadarshini Housing P. Ltd. Hyderabad.
truth therein the assessee would have retracted from his earlier statement at the earliest opportunity available to it.
36. We do not rule out the possibility that sometimes during the course of search the assessee may not be in a proper state of mind under various pressure and he admits income under different heads though he has reasonable explanation for those incomes. But in such circumstances the assessee should come forward and retract from the earlier statement recorded during the course of search at the earliest opportunity available to it. He should not wait for the start of assessment proceedings. As and when the search is over, the assessee has every right to consult the professionals on the statement made by it during the course of search and if he is advised so, he may retract from the statement recorded during the course of search and furnish valid explanation either to the search party or to the Assessing Officer or to the Commissioner having jurisdiction over the concerned Assessing Officer. In such circumstances, the contention of the assessee can be expected that his statement might have been recorded under the influence of coercion or under utter confusion. But if the assessee tried to retract from his earlier statement after a substantial period of time, such type of retraction is far from truth and cannot be accepted.
37. In the instant case, the statement of the assessee was not even recorded during the course of search. The search was conducted on 7.11.2006 and his statement was recorded on 21.12.2006. Therefore, it cannot be said that the statement was recorded under utter confusion as he has sufficient time to consult the professionals. Moreover the assessee has filed the affidavit retracting from his earlier statement on 8.12.2008 i.e. almost after 2 years. Therefore, the said retraction cannot be called to be valid retraction and has no evidentiary value. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT (A) who has rightly treated the receipt of on money in the hands of the assessee as well as Subhadarshi Estates, the other assessee, on sale of aforesaid two properties i.e. 20 acres of agricultural land at Ravalakoli village and the land measuring 1930 sq. yards at Vijayawada.
38. Either in the statement or during the course of search nothing has been found to show that how much money 15 ITA.No.273, 393, 394 & 395/Hyd/2011 M/s. Jayadarshini Housing P. Ltd. Hyderabad.
was received on account of sale of agricultural land. The Assessing Officer and the revenue authorities allocated the entire money on both sale transactions on different basis and the same is also under dispute before us. The issue of allocation of on money is also under dispute in another assessee i.e. Subhadarshi Estates also. We therefore, adjudicate this issue in the appeal of Subhdarshi Estates i.e. ITA No.179 of 2010".
17. Facts being same, respectfully following the Coordinate Bench decision in the case of the seller, we confirm the addition in the hands of the buyer i.e., assessee-company. Therefore, action of the A.O. and Ld. CIT(A) are accordingly confirmed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
18. In the result, ITA.No.273/Hyd/2011 of the assessee is dismissed and ITA.No.393 & 394/Hyd/2011 of the Revenue are considered as allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 16.05.2014.
Sd/- Sd/- (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated 16th May, 2014 VBP/- Copy to :
1. Jayadarshini Housing Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.1246, Road No.62, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. C/o. Sri S. Rama Rao, Advocate, Flat No.102, Shriya's Elegance, 3-6-643, Street No.9, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad-29.
2. ACIT, Central Circle-5, Hyderabad.
3. CIT(A)-VII, Hyderabad
4. CIT, (Central), Hyderabad
5. D.R. ITAT, 'A' Bench, Hyderabad.