2014 (8) TMI 393

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 respectively. 2. The grounds communicated to the petitioner in support of the impugned notices for all the four assessment years are identical and read as under:- "During the scrutiny assessment proceedings for the A.Y. 2010-11 in the assessee's case, it was found that the assessee was constructing a housing project of 126 Row Houses at Karjat, Ahmednagar. On this project the assessee claimed deduction u/s.80IB(10). During the assessment proceedings for A.Y.2010-11, it was found that the project was commenced on 20.12.2005.As per provision of section 80IB(10) of the Act, the project should have been completed on or before 31.03.2011. On physical verification of project site it was found that the proje....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Officer of the Gram Panchayat and not the Sarpanch. Hence, the panchanama signed by the Gram Vikas Adhikari prevails over the certificate issued by the Sarpanch. Further it has been factually established form the Panchanama and Photographs taken during the physical verification that project of the assessee was not completed on or before 31.3.2011. As the project was not completed by the assessee within the stipulated time asper the proviso of Section 80IB(10) of the Act, the assessee is not eligible for getting deduction u/s. 80IB (10) of the Act. The entire deduction u/s.80IB on this project is not allowed. This fact is also evident from the assessment order dated 25.3.2013 passed u/s.1243(3) of the Act for the A.Y.2010-11. In view of....