2012 (5) TMI 637

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion u/s 80IB(10) on the plea that the assessee is a contractor and not developer and built up area is more than 1500 sq.ft. and that completion certificate did not mention the date of completion. From the record, we found that during the year, the assessee has undertaken a housing project under the name of Vardhman Green City Extension. The project was approved by the competent authority i.e. Municipal Corporation, Bhopal, on 11.8.2003. The project comprised of 35 Duplex Houses. During the year five houses were sold which resulted into profit of Rs. 6,18,350/- on which deduction was claimed u/s 80IB(10). For being called "developer", the assessee was not only required to build the house but also required to undertake construction of road, w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hich was dispatched on 21st April, 2008, it has been certified by the Municipal Corporation that the assessee had carried out its development work as per project approval letter No. 3692 dated 8.10.2001. In view of these facts, the AO was not justified in holding that assessee was not a developer and merely a contractor. 3. With regard to the completion certificate, we found that it was signed on 31st March, 2008, but the dispatch of which was shown as on 21st April,2008. The person competent to sign the completion certificate has put the date of his signature as 31st March, 2008. Under these cirucmstances, it cannot be inferred that the assessee has not completed the project by 31st March, 2008. As we have already held in the case of M/s.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., Narela Shankari, Bhopal was having built up area less than 1500 sq.ft. when the same was constructed by the appellant and its possession was given to the buyer. Thereafter, the purchaser occupying the said house had make extra construction of 123.60 sq..ft. at his own and in support of the same, an affidavit of the occupant of the said house was filed before the learned Assessing Officer on 24.12.2008 but the Assessing Officer had neither examined the deponent nor found that the contents of the affidavit were false and, therefore, the learned Assessing Officer was not justified in rejecting the affidavit furnished by the assessee and concluding that the appellant had constructed duplex house no. 128(28) having built up area of 1610.53 sq.....