TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (1) TMI 1830
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....42,57,600/- on income computed from the business of an undertaking developing and building a housing project, even though the land and approval is not in assessee's name and construction is not as per approved plan. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to allow deduction u/s.80IB of the Act of Rs. 42,57,600/- on income computed from the business of an undertaking developing and building a housing project relying on Hon'ble Tribunal (Mumbai) case of Saroj Sales Organisation vs. ITO (115 TTJ 485) eventhoguh the assessee constructed only 3 out of nine buildings and not completed the entire project before 31/03/2008. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to delete the addition made on account of disallowance of expenditure of Rs. 79,48,600/- u/s.40(a)(ia) of IT Act. 4. It is therefore prayed that the order of the learned CIT(A) be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. The appellant craves to add, alter or amend any grounds of appeal. 2.1. Briefly stated facts are that the case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The AO disallowed the claim of deduction on the basis that the construction is not as per the approved plan, approved plan has commercial area more than 2000 sq.ft., project will not be completed by 31/03/2008, final completion certificate not received, land not in assessee's name and approval also not in assessee's name, area will be less than one acre if only area under 'B, C, 'D' is considered and it is against public policy to construct buildings deviating from the approved plan without obtaining prior permission for deviation. We find that the ld.CIT(A) has examined all these objections in his order thoroughly and has given finding on fact in para-7.3 to para-8 of his order at page Nos.48 to 50, by observing as under:- "7.3. Having regard to the above facts and analyses of the provisions, I find that the basic conditions for claiming the deduction are fulfilled and they are as follows:- i. The project undertaken by the appellant is a housing project. A fact, no disputed by AO. ii. The local authorities have approved the project. A fact, no ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sion relied on by the appellant and referred earlier, the Hon.Tribunal has held that even a part of the project constitutes a housing project and is eligible for the deduction. 7.6.1. The AO has questioned the applicability of the said decision on the ground of dissimilarity of the facts. On going through the objections, I note that the facts pointed out, as distinguishing facts, no doubt, are not present; but that is because of the twostage acquisition of two different projects by the appellant in that case from the developer. Otherwise, the facts remain the same. 7.6.2. Apart from that, the decision can be relied upon for the clarity on the nature of housing project contemplated by the provision. To put it differently, in principle, the Hon Tribunal has accepted the fact that even a part of the project, out of the whole, is eligible for the deduction. What is relevant, for the present purpose, is the principle laid down. 7.6.3. Accordingly, respectfully following the said decision I hold that the appellant is eligible for the deduction even if it has undertaken development and construction of a part of the project. In the result, the first ground of the appeal, that is, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....disallowed, the same is entitled for deduction u/s.80IB of the Act on the income computed from the business of an undertaking developing and building a housing Project. Since the Revenue could not controvert this finding of the ld.CIT(A), therefore we hereby upheld the order of the ld.CIT(A) and reject this ground of Revenue's appeal. 7. In the result, Revenue's appeal in ITA No.2408/Ahd/2009 is dismissed. 8. Now, we take up remaining two appeals of the Revenue, i.e. ITA No.2409/Ahd/2009 for AY 2006-07 and ITA No.3131/Ahd/2010 for AY 2007- 08, wherein following grounds have been raised by the Revenue in its respective appeals:- (A) In ITA No.2409/Ahd/2009 for AY 2006-07 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to allow deduction u/s.80IB of the Act of Rs. 42,57,600/- on income computed from the business of an undertaking developing and building a housing project, even though the land and approval is not in assessee's name and construction is not as per approved plan. 2.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to allow deduction u/s.80IB of the Act....