Court rules on prospective application of Section 80-IB(10) amendment, allowing deductions for compliant units.

The Court held that the 2005 amendment to Section 80-IB(10) operates prospectively, following a Supreme Court judgment. Despite some residential units exceeding the specified area limit, the assessee could claim deduction for proportionate profit from compliant units. Upholding the Tribunal's decision, the Court emphasized a liberal interpretation of the provision to grant entitled benefits to the assessee. The appeals were disposed of without interference, aligning with previous consistent views favoring the assessee.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether the 2005 amendment to Section 80-IB(10) is prospective or retrospectiveRs.
2. Can an assessee claim deduction under Section 80-IB(10) for a project where some residential units exceed the specified area limitRs.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The first issue pertains to the prospective or retrospective operation of the 2005 amendment to Section 80-IB(10). The Tribunal relied on a Bombay High Court order, but the assessee cited a Supreme Court judgment endorsing the Bombay view. The Court, following the Supreme Court judgment, held that the amendment operates prospectively.

Issue 2:
Regarding the second issue, it is acknowledged that the assessee's project meets other conditions of Section 80-IB(10) but falls short in some residential units exceeding the specified area limit. The Tribunal's previous orders and the Court's dismissal of appeals confirm a consistent view favoring the assessee. Although the Revenue's contention seems valid at first glance, a detailed examination of the provision reveals that compliance with other conditions may justify claiming deduction for the proportionate profit related to residential units within the limit. As the Tribunal's decision did not cover profit from units exceeding the limit, the Court upheld the Tribunal's liberal construction of the provision to grant the entitled benefit to the assessee.

In conclusion, the Court disposed of the appeals without interfering with the Tribunal's order, considering the consistent view in previous cases. The Court emphasized the need to interpret the provision liberally to grant benefits to the assessee as entitled.

---