Just a moment...

Top
Help
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2016 (10) TMI 53

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....assessee under section 80IB to the extent of Rs. 48,96,000/- out of the total claim of Rs. 1,93,06,458/-?" 2. In Tax Appeal No. 671 of 2016, since the identical question arose, we had posted the said tax appeal for further hearing alongwith Tax Appeal No. 546 of 2011. Though served in both the tax appeals, no one appeared for the respondent-assessee. 3. Brief facts are as under: The respondent-assessee is engaged in the business of construction of housing schemes. For the assessment year 2006- 07, the assessee claimed deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act ['the Act' for short] with respect to two housing projects developed which were called Geet Gunjan Residency and Geet Gunjan Vatika. The case of the assessee wa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rcated two projects for separate consideration the Assessing Officer held that Geet Gunjan Vatika project was developed on land area of 3000 sq.meters which was less than one acre, the minimum land area required for deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Act. With respect to Geet Gunjan Vatika project, therefore, he disallowed the assesse's claim of deduction. 5. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner. The Appellate Commissioner allowed the appeal holding that merely because the two different societies were constituted would not mean that the projects were separate. He noted that all the permissions granted by the authorities were common. Secondly, he agreed that the assessee was not allowed to bifurcate the....