TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (7) TMI 776
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2 Was the assessee liable to pay income tax on the annual letting value of the unsold flats owned by it under the head income from the house property? ITA NOS.210, 214 & 215/2012 1. The brief facts are that the appellant commenced development and construction development and construction of housing projects, somewhere in NOIDA, and claimed that it had started development and constructions of housing projects in NOIDA after 13.09.1998. The Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the materials on record did not justify granting the appellant the benefit of Section 80IB in view of the language of Section 80 ID (10). The Assessing Officer, therefore, made a disallowance in respect of years 1999-2000, 2002-03 and 2003-04. The assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as the issue in any case, was debatable and one of the possible views was taken by the assessing officer while granting deduction to the assessee. It was also allowed by the CIT (Appeals) in the succeeding assessment years viz. 2002-03 and 2003-04. The revision of impugned assessment orders as sought to be made by the CIT, while exercising jurisdiction under section 263, would in such a case be merely a difference of opinion and hence not amenable to the revision jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act, in view of Supreme Court decision in the cases of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC) as also later decision in CIT v. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282 (SC). 23. We hold therefore that CIT is not right in holding that AO faile....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(1) Malabar Industries Co. Ltd. V/s. CIT (2000) 243ITR 83, G.M. Mittal 263 ITR 255 (2) CIT Vs Max India Ltd. (SC) (2007) 295 ITR 282 13. The Tribunal however, observed that since no submissions were made by the assessee as regard the disallowance under Section 14A, the orders of the CIT on that issue had to be affirmed. 14. We are not persuaded to take a view different from the view taken by the Tribunal. A clear finding was recorded by the Tribunal that the assessee had filed the details and calculations about the built-up area of the residential units. It would be unreasonable to hold that the Assessing Officer ignored those details. Moreover the statutory auditors had clearly mentioned the dates of approval of the lay out plan o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere issued after 1st October, 1998, except for 26 houses in Avantika Akruti Project. The Tribunal has also referred to certain orders of the Pune and Bombay Benches of the Tribunal where the date of approval by the competent authority was considered crucial to determine the date of commencement of development or construction. This discussion of the Tribunal shows that the determination of the question as to when the undertaking commenced development and construction, in the absence of any statutory prescription, has to be decided in a pragmatic and reasonable way. It would have been an entirely different issue had there been a statutory prescription of what would be the date of commencement of construction or development. It is certainly a ....