2016 (8) TMI 1295

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ions 3,4 and 5 on pages 12 and 13 of the paper book are substantial questions of law. They read thus:- I):Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in not appreciating the fact that Kumar Kruti project is a part of larger project i.e. Kumar City which was approved on 08.08.2003 and the housing project had not been completed by 31.03.2008, thus violating the conditions provided in clause (a) to section 80IB(10) of the Act? II):Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in allowing pro rata claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) in respect of eligible flats in the project Kumar Kruti in-spite of vio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....year 2008-2009. After setting down the rival contentions in great details, the Tribunal concluded that the view that the Revenue desires it to take cannot be taken because the same Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune Bench in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v/s Aditya Developers had an occasion to consider identical , factual and legal issues. 8. In paragraph 19 of the order under challenge, the Tribunal has reproduced its own factual findings in the case of Aditya Developers(supra) and concurred with them and partly allowed the assesse's appeal. 9. It is fairly stated that the Income Tax Appeals of the Revenue filed in the case of Aditya Developers (supra), were dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 28th Ja....