demonstrable evidence, allowed the claim of deduction only based on recitals of the joint venture agreement and that the assessee had declared its total income as well as profit, and the books of accounts, and other details of expenditure were not rejected. The joint venture development agreement itself was a highly doubtful document because on the date of entering into joint venture, the assessee firm was not even born. The recitals regarding payment of Rs.50 lakhs were made by Mr.G.Rajendran, who claimed to be partner of an unregistered partnership firm. Non-production of any materials despite repeated demands was a doubtful circumstance which was duly considered by the Assessing Officer and CIT (Appeals) but the Appellate Tribunal completely failed to take into consideration, much less traverse, such emphatic findings of the authorities below. The Tribunal also failed to take note of specific findings recorded by the Assessing Officer and CIT (Appeals) that M/s.Iswaryalakshmi Properties Private Limited would not stand to gain even if it claims deduction under Section 80IB (10) of the Act because it was running losses and it has carried forward the losses also. Moreover, in the joint venture, as the recitals go to show, M/s.Iswaryalakshmi Properties Private Limited was not a party but at the most, it could be treated only as a power of attorney holder of the
