Tribunal decision on property issues: garden area, completion date, 'on money' receipts.

The tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals and partly allowed the Revenue's cross-appeals. It affirmed the CIT(A)'s decisions on issues such as the inclusion of garden area, multiple allotments, completion date compliance, exclusion of terrace area, and proportionate deductions. The tribunal restored the disallowance of 'on money' receipts due to lack of evidence from the assessee.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Section 80IB(10) deduction claim.
2. Inclusion of garden area in built-up area.
3. Allotment of more than one flat to one person.
4. Completion date of the residential project.
5. Inclusion of terrace area in built-up area.
6. Treatment of 'on money' receipts.
7. Pro-rata deduction for eligible housing units.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Section 80IB(10) Deduction Claim:
The primary issue involves the assessee's claim for deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, which was denied by the lower authorities on various grounds. The appellate tribunal examined the validity and eligibility of the assessee's claim for the deduction.

2. Inclusion of Garden Area in Built-Up Area:
The assessee contended that the garden area should be excluded from the built-up area calculation. However, the Assessing Officer (AO) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] included the garden area based on the precedent set by the jurisdictional Tribunal in the case of Kumar Builders Consortium. The tribunal upheld this inclusion, stating that the garden area was exclusively for the use of the allottee and fell within the walls, thus violating clause (c) of section 80IB(10).

3. Allotment of More Than One Flat to One Person:
The Revenue argued that the assessee violated section 80IB(10)(f) by allotting more than one flat to a single person. The CIT(A) found that the assessee had indeed allotted multiple flats to Smt. Sandhya Rakesh Sharma, which was against the provisions of the Act. The tribunal upheld this finding due to the lack of evidence to the contrary from the assessee.

4. Completion Date of the Residential Project:
The Revenue claimed that the project was not completed by the stipulated date of 31.03.2012. However, the tribunal referred to a previous decision where it was established that the project was completed by 31.03.2011, and even if the last completion certificate was issued on 02.09.2011, it still fell within the permissible limit. Thus, the tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision in favor of the assessee.

5. Inclusion of Terrace Area in Built-Up Area:
The AO included the terrace area in the built-up area calculation, which the assessee contested. The CIT(A) excluded the terrace area based on judicial precedents that terraces open to the sky should not be included in the built-up area. The tribunal upheld this exclusion, aligning with the established legal position.

6. Treatment of 'On Money' Receipts:
The assessee argued that 'on money' receipts should be eligible for deduction under section 80IB(10). The CIT(A) allowed this claim, referencing the Bombay High Court's decision in Sheth Developers. However, the tribunal emphasized that the assessee failed to prove that the 'on money' pertained solely to eligible units. Consequently, the tribunal restored the disallowance due to the lack of evidence.

7. Pro-Rata Deduction for Eligible Housing Units:
The CIT(A) granted proportionate deduction under section 80IB(10) for units that met the stipulated conditions, following various judicial precedents. The tribunal upheld this decision, noting the absence of any contrary judicial precedent presented by the Revenue. The tribunal directed the AO to withdraw deductions for units violating the conditions and to allow deductions for compliant units.

Conclusion:
The assessee's four appeals (ITA No.1679 to 1682/PUN/2016) were dismissed, and the Revenue's cross appeals (ITA No.1684 to 1687/PUN/2016) were partly allowed. The tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decisions on various issues, including the inclusion of garden area, multiple allotments, completion date, terrace area exclusion, and proportionate deductions. The tribunal restored the disallowance of 'on money' receipts due to insufficient evidence from the assessee.

---