TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal upholds CIT(A)'s order in tax case regarding receipts, section 80IB(10) deduction, and combined projects.</h1> <h3>The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 15 (1), Mumbai Versus M/s Fortaleza Developers</h3> The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 15 (1), Mumbai Versus M/s Fortaleza Developers - TMI Issues Involved:1. Deletion of addition towards receipts not shown.2. Deduction u/s 80IB(10) concerning flats exceeding 1500 sq.ft.3. Deduction u/s 80IB(10) concerning combined residential and commercial projects.Summary:Issue 1: Deletion of Addition towards Receipts Not ShownThe revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs. 4,43,366/- towards receipts not shown. However, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, noting that the issue became infructuous and revenue neutral due to the assessee's entitlement to deduction u/s 80IB(10).Issue 2: Deduction u/s 80IB(10) Concerning Flats Exceeding 1500 sq.ftThe revenue argued that some flats exceeded 1500 sq.ft, violating sec. 80IB(10). The Tribunal found no dispute regarding the built-up area being less than 1500 sq.ft as per the sanctioned plan. The CIT(A) detailed the area of each flat, confirming compliance with the built-up area requirement. The Tribunal concluded that receiving consideration for more than 1500 sq.ft, including common areas, did not constitute a violation of sec. 80IB(10)(c), as the built-up area remained within limits.Issue 3: Deduction u/s 80IB(10) Concerning Combined Residential and Commercial ProjectsThe revenue contended that the combined residential and commercial project exceeded the commercial area limit prescribed u/s 80IB(10)(d). The Tribunal noted that the layout plan was approved by the Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) as one project, but subsequently, two separate projects were sanctioned. The Tribunal held that as per pre-amended provisions of sec. 80IB(10), there was no condition regarding commercial area. The Tribunal cited the decision in Saroj Sales Organisation vs ITO and the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court's ruling in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Brahma Associates, affirming that the amendment effective from 1.4.2005 could not be applied retrospectively. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, allowing the deduction.Conclusion:The appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed, and the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order on all issues. The order was pronounced on 25th April 2012.
TaxTMI 