AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (3) TMI 512
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....order of the Ld CIT(A) be vacated and that of the A.O be restored. Thus we find that the issue involved in the grounds is as to whether the Ld CIT(A) was justified in holding that the assessee is entitled to the claimed deduction u/s. 80 IB(10) of the Act during the A.Ys. under consideration ? 2. The relevant facts are that during the A.Ys. under consideration, the assessee in the business of builder and developer had claimed deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of Rs. 6,90,51,536/- in A.Y. 2003-04 and Rs. 2,31,65,627/- in the A.Y. 2004-05. The A.O. denied the same mainly on the ground that the project undertaken was nothing but an extension of old project. The contention of the assessee, on the other hand, remained that the assessee had developed and constructed an independent housing project namely Krishna Keval Township (KKT) at Pune and had derived profit from the said housing project. It was contended that the assessee has complied with all the requirements of Sec. 80IB(10). It was submitted that the housing project was developed on a plot of land exceeding 1 acre, work of construction and development of the Housing Project had started on or after 1.10.1998, the housing project comprised....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....366 sq.mtrs. He thereafter referred page No. 93 of the paper book i.e. details about KKT Housing Project. He pointed out that KKN project constituted buildings A to J whereas the project under consideration i.e. KKT consisted Wings I,M,N,O,P and K1 and K2. The Ld A.R. referred to page No. 103 (Wings I, M,N,O, P) & 104 (Wings K1 and K2) i.e. the copies of approved building plans dated 29.3.2001 and 09.3.2001 in respect of KKT housing project. In these building plans, details about KKT housing project has been given. The Ld. A.R. submitted further that in these building plans of the KKT housing project wings were completed on 10.10.2002 and wings I, M, N,O, P were completed on 10.2.2003 (page No.93 of the paper book). He submitted that total number of units in the project was 188. The area of plot of land in 'KKT' was 8966 sq. mtrs. The project is fully residential and there is no unit having built up area more than 1500 sq.ft. About the letter dt. 4.5,.2001 written by CBDT to M/s. Maharashtra Chamber of Housing Industry, made available at page No. 110 of the paper book, the Ld. AR. submitted that it is clarification by the CBDT on the query raised by Maharashtra Chamber of Housing I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pointed out that in the present case, there are same assessee, same addition in the same project. Ignoring these material facts, the Ld CIT(A) erred in allowing the claimed deduction. 6. We have considered the above submissions and have gone through the orders of the authorities below, material available on the record and the decisions relied upon by the parties. The facts in details submitted by the assessee before the A.O vide letter dated 16.10.2006 have also been gone through. For a ready reference, para nos. 1 to 8 of the letter dated 16.10.2006 submitted by the assessee before the A.O are being reproduced hereunder : "1. M/s Aditya Developers purchased a plot of land bearing Survey No. 1/A(Part) of Kondhwa Khurd, Pune from Ranade and their relatives. Thereafter M/s. Aditya Developers got the clearance from Urban and Land Ceiling Department vide order dated 17-8- 1988. Then we got layout plans sanctioned from the PMC vide order dated 25-5-1990. As per the terms of the ULC we have to show 25 s1.mtr corehouse plots and building in layout plan and get it sanctioned from PMC. If we don't implement their order ad show the vacant land in the plan, the ULC department might have ini....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 5-10-2006. English translation of the same is as under : PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Construction Control Dept. Outward No. BCO/5102 Date: 5-10-2006 To, M/s Aditya Develooers, Residing at Sadashiv Peth No. 619,Pune 30 Sub: Regarding construction on S.No. 1(Part),Kondhwa, Pune Ref: Your letter dt. 3-10-2006 On the above mentioned subject and under the letter referred above, it is being informed that permission for construction of 'K' building at S.No. 1(Part) Kondhwa Khurd, Pune was given vide No. 4975 dt. 9-3-01 and certificate of plinth checking was given under No. BCO/03/74 DT. 27-9-2001. Also permission for building MNIOP was given vide letter No. 4981 dt. 29-3-2001 As per the available record there is no mention of any building construction of whatsoever nature was found on the land of above buildings before sanctioning permission for above construction. Sd/- Building Inspector Sd Asst. Engineer Pune Municipal Corporation 5. Certificates of our Architect dated 14-10-2006 confirming this fact is also enclosed for your consideration. 6. The TDR was purchased from the open market and utilized as well as debited to Profit & Loss account in books of account wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch constituted "no objection" from municipal corporation for allowing assessee to have the construction on the said property. It was contended that on the basis of preliminary sanction, the assessee made an application for converting the said land into Non- agricultural land. This application was made on 25th November 1998 and the revenue authorities converted the said agricultural land into Non-agricultural land on 13th June 1999. It was also contended by the assessee that the building plan was submitted to the municipal corporation and the said corporation sanctioned the building plan on 23rd July 1999. In other words, the municipal corporation gave the permission of construction on 23rd July 1999. After discussing the cases of the parties, the Tribunal has accepted the above contentions of the assessee that the housing project has been approved by the local authority on 23rd July 1999 i.e. after 1st October1998, hence the assessee was eligible for the claimed deduction u/s. 80 IB (10) of the Act since it was fulfilling all other requirements of the provisions. 6.1. Likewise, in the case of Vandana Properties Vs. ACIT (Supra), the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal has decided....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... master plan as a concept and if a particular unit satisfies the condition of Section 80 IB (10), the assessee is entitled for deduction. The Tribunal held that Plan for development was only a work order and not final plans sanctioned by local authority. For any project, there could not have been a plan without submission of the detailed building plans by the architect and on the requisite details required to be submitted for approval of the building plans by the local authorities. In other words, the Tribunal accepted the contention of the assessee that the development plan is only conceptual and the detailed construction plans are not submitted nor approved without which no construction can even commence, and this is done only subsequently where the assessee submits the construction plans which are approved by the authority. This is done for each project. The Pune Bench in the cases of Apoorva Properties and Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, ITA No. 113/PN/2007, A.Y. 2003-04, order dated 21st August 2009 and Mumbai Bench in the case of Mudhit Madanlal Gupta Vs/ ACIT (Supra), 51 DTR (Mum ) Trib 217 have expressed the similar view. 7. There is no reason to dispute on facts in the present....