TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (9) TMI 972
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ruse the appeal on the revised grounds of appeal, which are as follows :- "I. Original Ground Nos. 1 & 2 1. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (A) failed to appreciate that the appellant had obtained completion certificate in respect of Buildings on which deduction u/s.80IB(10) was claimed though the condition of obtaining building completion certificate is not applicable to the Appellant s the project commenced prior to 1/4/2005 when the condition to obtain building completion certificate did not exist and hence, deduction u/s 80IB(10) cannot be denied to the Appellant. 1.1 Without prejudice to above, the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that as no deduction u/s 80IB(10) was claimed on Krishnakunj A. Wing,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellant relying upon the clarification issued by the CBDT to Maharashtra Chamber of Housing Industries , explained that once the project is approved as 'housing project' it amounts to approval as 'housing project.' The explanation of the appellant was rejected by the AC and relying upon the decision in the case of M/s Laukik Developers Vs DCIT , Circle-3 Thane , proceeded to hold that the assessee having failed to fulfill one of the conditions of Section 801B(10) is not entitled for the same. The excerpts of the submission are like this : i. The appellant has constructed 3 buildings out of 23 buildings approved as 'Salasar Brijbhoomi'. The said project has fulfilled all the requisite conditions. ii. The plan is app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o exceed 1000 sq. ft. 4.3 In respect of the above submissions, the appellant has relied upon the decisions in the following cases : i. Shri Harshad P. Doshi Vs. DCIT, Mumbai. ii. ITO vs. M/s. Ideal Realtors iii. M/s. Saroj Sales Corporation vs. DCIT, Mumbai. iv. Poonam Grih Nirman Vs. ACIT, Mumbai v. Bengal Ambuja Housing Ltd. vs. DCIT." 4. The CIT(A), while accepting the contentions of the assessee, denied the deduction on the ground that OC (occupation certificate) had not been received and since one of the main condition embedded in section 80IB(10)(a)(ii) had not been fulfilled, the deduction could not be allowed. Aggrieved the assessee is now before the ITAT. 5. Before us, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thout clear words to that effect in the provisions of Sec.80IB(10) as amended by the Finance Act, 2005, lu.e.fO1.4.2005. We, therefore, hold following decision in the case of Saroj Sales Organization (supra) that the law as existed in the A.Y. 2004-05 when the assessee submitted its proposal for slum rehabilitation and the permission for carrying out the development was accorded on 17.11.2003 and when the assessee commenced development is to be applied." 6.1 The AR also relied on the decision of ACIT vs Sheth Developers in ITA No. 4497/Mum/2006, reported in 33 SOT 277 (Mum), wherein the coordinate bench at Mumbai ITAT held, "Whether definition of 'built-up area' in clause (A) of section 80-IB(14) introduced by Finance Act, 2004 has only ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e two blocks especially when the second block had been kept separate by the assessee and for which deduction under s.80-IB(10) was not claimed." 6.4 The AR relied on a number of decisions rendered by various coordinate Benches and concluded that the deduction u/s 80IB(10) cannot be denied by the revenue authorities. 7. The DR on the other hand, strongly supported the decision of the revenue authority and submitted that the entire business of development wrests on the OC and if OC, as per the submissions of the AR is not required, the whole provision of section 80IB(10) shall be rendered otios. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and have also perused the material on record. We find that the assessee had undertaken the developmen....