TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (4) TMI 639
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....clusion that the assessee's project had commenced on 3-6-1995 when the layout plan was first sanctioned. The stand of the assessee has been that the development rights for the particular plot of land were obtained by the assessee from Mrs. Sunita Mahadkar vide development agreement dated 2-8-2004 and it is on this particular piece of plot that the assessee had developed its project. It was also explained that the original layout plan was sanctioned for the project belonging to Mrs. Sunita Mahadkar, who was engaged in the construction of the earlier project thus approved. In this background it was contended that only after obtaining the development rights, in August 2004 by the assessee firm with respect to particular plot having area of 52245 sq.ft. The assessee firm had taken the building plan approved only after that. Therefore, the contention that the project had commenced in 1995 was not correct. It was further clarified that the project and the undertaking of the assessee was different than that of Mrs. Sunita Mahadkar. Rejecting contentions made on behalf of the assessee the Assessing Officer concluded that the project had commenced prior to 1-10-1998 and therefore, disallowe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e in the case of the assessee. Having gone through that decision, we do not agree with the above contention of the Ld. D.R. The decision fully covers the case of the assessee on the issue. It appears that the whole confusion on the issue in the mind of the A.O was due to his understanding of lay out plan and building plan one and the same thing, hence he has committed error in treating the date of approval of the] lay out plan by the Municipal Corporation as the date of approval of the building plan to compute the period of completion of the building plan to verify the eligibility of the claimed deduction u/s. 80IB (10) of the Act. Pune Bench of the Tribunal has occasion to discuss the distinction between the lay out plan and building plan in the case of Nirmiti Construction (Supra). In that case before the Tribunal, the lay outs were furnished to the Municipal Corporation for sanction on 6th June 1998 and construction work was commenced after building permission was sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation on 23rd July 1999. Department took the stand that the development commenced with the development agreement and acquiring irrecoverable power of attorney and more so that lay outs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ales Organization Vs. ITO (Supra), the Mumbai Bench has again expressed the same view and held that the commencement certificates in respect of these wings in block "N" were separately received by the assessee and all the flats in block "N" were of less than 1000 sq.ft., hence it is not open to the revenue to include block "B, C" as part of block "N" just to deny relief u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act. The Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal has also got occasion to discuss Distinction between the sanction of lay out plan and approval of building plans by the local authority for consideration of the eligibility of U/s. 80 IB (10) deduction in the case of DCIT Vs. Brigade Enterprises (P) Ltd. (Supra). In that case before the Bangalore Bench, the assessee undertook a development project in an area of 22 Acres 19 guntas consisting of 5 residential block raw houses, Oak Tree Place, a Club, and Community Centre, a School, a Park and claimed deduction u/s. 80 IB (10) in respect of 2 residential units which if deducted separately were eligible for the relief. The A.O treated the entire project as a single unit and denied relief u/s. 80 IB (10) in entirety. The Tribunal justified the action of the Ld....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pproved on 29.3.2001 has been made available at page No. 103 of the paper book. There is no dispute on the dates of completion of the buildings in the housing project. The CBDT in its letter dated 4th May 2001 (page No. 110 of the paper book) has also made it clear that the definition of "housing project" is any project which has been approved by the local authority as a "housing project" should be considered adequate for purpose of Sec. 10(23 G) and 80 IB (10). We also find from the Explanation (i) to S. 801B(10) that the housing project and building plan of such housing project are two different concept. For a ready reference Explanation (i) to the Section is being reproduced hereunder : "Explanation- For the purposes of this clause, - (i) in a case where the approval in respect of the housing project is obtained more than once, such housing project shall be deemed to have been approved on the date on which the building plan of such housing project is first approved by the local authority;" From the very reading of the Explanation (i) makes it clear that the date on which building plan of such housing project is approved shall be deemed the date of approval of the housing pr....