TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (10) TMI 290
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') with respect to those units of 'housing project' approved and constructed prior to 31/03/2008. 2. The revenue has proposed the following substantial question of law; "Whether the ITAT is justified in law as well as on facts in holding that the assessee is fulfilling condition laid down under Section 80IB of the Act and entitled for deductions under Section 80IB of the Act on the units completed on or before 31/03/2008?" 3. The facts leading to the present Tax Appeal in a nutshell are as under; 3.1. The respondent-assessee submitted the return of income for the Assessment Year 2008-09 declaring the total income 'NIL'. The return was selected for scrutin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e present Tax Appeal with the aforesaid proposed substantial question of law. 4. Shri Pranav Desai, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the revenue has vehemently submitted that the tribunal has materially erred in granting the deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Act even with respect to those units, which were approved and constructed prior to 31/03/2008. It is submitted that as the entire 'housing project' was not completed and/or constructed prior to 31/03/2008 the respondent-assessee would not be entitled to deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Act. Making the above submissions, it is requested to admit the present appeal. 5. We have heard Shri Pranav Desai, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-revenue an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rd 'approval' and not 'approvals' for housing project. Accordingly, the A.O. came to conclusion that the assessee has failed to fulfill the basic conditions laid down in Section 80IB(10) and that is why the claim of deduction was disallowed. However, the above contentions of the A.O. is not correct. Firstly, he has not clearly pointed out which of the conditions laid down u/s. 80IB(10) are not fulfilled by the appellant. As regarding his averment that Section 80IB(10) uses the word 'approval' and not ' approvals' for housing project it appears that the A.O. has not properly gone through the other provisions of Section 80IB(10). The word 'approval' can be taken and considered as singular and also multiples when more than one projects are the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... As far as the condition of the area of project is concerned it should be more than one acre, here in the case of appellant the project 'Maninagar' having 119 units was constructed on an area of 3.33 Acres. Similarly, the condition regarding built up area per unit should be less than 1500 sq. ft. and there is no dispute regarding that in the appellant's case also because all the 119 units are having less than area of 1500 sq.ft. As regarding the date of completion it has been laid down in Section 80IB(10) that the construction should be competed on or before 31/03/2008. Here, in the case of appellant, it is found that most of the units have been completed before 31/03/2008. However, it is found that out of 119 units, construction of some o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Brigade Enterprises (P) Ltd. (119 ITJ 269) has held that although separate approvals are obtained for different units, if particular unit satisfied the conditions of Section 80IB(10) deduction is to be granted. Therefore, keeping in view all the facts of the case and the legal issue involved, it is held that the appellant fulfills all the conditions laid down u/s 80IB(10) of the Act and that the A.O's averment that on the basis of multiple approvals 80IB deduction can be disallowed is held to be incorrect. Accordingly, the claim of deduction made by the appellant u/s. 80IB is allowed and the addition made of Rs.1,45,67,940/- is hereby ordered to be deleted. However, the A.O. is directed to see if the construction of any unit is complete....