TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (6) TMI 276
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IT(A) erred in allowing the assessee's claim of deduction of Rs. 1,97,63,000/- u/s 80IB, following and applying the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Brahma Associates 333 ITR 289, without appreciating that the said decision of the Hon'ble Court has been given in relation to the Assessment Year 2003-04 and hence, not applicable to the assessee's case and the assessment year involved is AY 2005-06. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in allowing the assessee's claim of deduction of Rs. 1,97,63,000/- u/s 80IB, without appreciating that ITAT, Special Bench, Pune in the case of Brahma Associates 119 ITD 255 for AY 2003-04 has categorically held t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....under section 80IB(10) of the Act. These orders were set aside by the ITAT "H" Bench, Mumbai with a clear direction to the AO for deciding the issue keeping in view the decision of the ITAT Special Bench, Pune in the case of Brahma Associates 119 ITD 255. 4. While giving effect to the order of the ITAT the AO passed an order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Act wherein he observed that the Tribunal restored the matter for deciding the issue keeping in view the decision of the ITAT Pune Bench in the case of Brahma Associates which in turn refers to other conditions to be fulfilled but the assessee has not furnished particulars with regard to fulfilment of other conditions. It deserves to be highlighted that in the first round of lit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant. Even I have also perused the remand report and the counter comments filed by the appellant in respect of admission of additional evidence. Having taken note Of jurisdictional Bombay High Court decision in the case of Smt. Prabhavati Shah vs. CIT (1998) 231 fl'R I (Born.) and also of the Apex Court decision in the case of National Therrnal Power Co. Ltd. v/s CIT [229 ITR 383 (SC)] & Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v/s CIT [187 ITR 688 (SC), the appellant's additional evidence is admitted, as the same is having full relevance on the issue involved in this appeal. 4.13 Having considered all the factual position of the case, I find that as per original order the dispute was w.r.t. commercial construction in excess of prescribed l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rojects sanctioned on or before 01- 04-2005 and therefore the prospective amendments cannot be considered to be applicable for the appellant's projects which are already approved before 01-04-2005 in view of the conditions laid down u/s. 80IB(10) of the IT Act, 1961. I also relied upon number of judgments of Hon'ble ITAT's and various Hon'ble Courts which are also relied upon by the appellant Company. I find that the jurisdictional ITAT, Mumbai has very specifically held in the case of M/s Sai Krupa Developers vs. ITO (ITA No.3661/Mum/2011) that "Since the appellant has fulfilled all the conditions for claiming deduction u/s 801B(10), the deduction cannot be denied merely because the appellant did not obtain the completion c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e with effect from April 1, 2005, cannot be applied retrospectively. Order the Special Bench in BRAHMA ASSOCIATES vs. JOINT CIT [2009] 315 ITR (AT) 268 (Pune) affirmed on this point. Section 80IB(10) allows deduction to the entire project approved by the local authority and not to a part of the project. If the conditions set out in section 80IB(10) are satisfied, then deduction is allowable on the entire project approved by the local authority and there is no question of allowing deduction to a part of the project." 4.16 Thus, having taken note of aforesaid stated facts of the case and also the submission filed by, the appellant, I am of the considered view that in the appellant's case the provisions of section 801B(10) are app....