TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 245
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly Project Vista and Project Srishti. They have claimed deduction only in respect of Project Vista which is subdivided into five sub projects, namely, Project A and B, Project D and E, Project C (B1,B2,B3), Project F (B4,B5,B6,B7) and Vista Commercial. The assessee has been claiming deduction under section 80 IB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") in respect of the profits of Project A&B and D&E. 3. During the scrutiny assessment, Ld. AO disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80-IB(10) of the Act, on the ground that the assessee had not fulfilled the conditions like obtaining separate approvals and obtained only a common approval of map for all the projects, deduction was claimed on certain units exceeding 1000 Sq ft. in area and that the overall area of the commercial project is exceeding the prescribed limits. Ld. AO rejected the Project Completion Method adopted by the assessee and adopted Percentage Completion Method and partly disallowed the deduction under section 80 IB(10) of the Act in respect of profits earned on project. 4. When the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A), learned CIT(A) partly allowed the deduction under s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....88 taxmann.com 69 (SC); (ii) Om Engineers & Builders vs ITO (ITAT Pune) 109 ITD 235; (iii) ACIT vs Viswas Promoters (P) Ltd. (ITAT, Chennai) 126 ITD 263; and (iv) Histle Properties (P) Ltd. vs ACIT (ITAT, Mumbai) 134 ITD 6, the claim of the assessee is not tenable, the revenue does not dispute the submission advanced on behalf of the assessee that for the earlier assessment years the matter was dealt with by a coordinate Bench of this Tribunal and the issues involved are directly and substantially of the same. 7. We have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. On a reading of the impugned orders as well as the order dated 30/05/2016 in ITA No. 1950/Del/2012 and batch, we find that such a decision was rendered in assessee's own case for the Assessment Years 2008-09 and 2009- 10 and the issues involved in all these matters are directly and substantially the same. 8. Vide paragraph Nos. 34 and 35 of the order, the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the above case, dealt with the aspect of the requirement of separate approval for all the sub projects and held as follows: - "34. As far as the issue of requirement of a separate approv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed in s. 80-113(10) of the Act, should be taken to be the project per se, as approved by a 'local authority' for the purposes of s. 80-IB( 10) of the Act. No doubt, for a 'housing project' to be eligible for deduction under s. 80-IB (10) of the Act, it is required to be approved by a 'local authority', so however, the phraseology of s. 80-IB (10) of the Act does not reflect a legislative intent that the project should be 'as approved' by a 'local authority'. The requirement of s. 80-IB (10) of the Act to the effect that project should be approved by a 'local authority' is fulfilled no sooner when the 'housing project' considered by an assessee is approved by a 'local authority'. Moreover, the expression 'housing project' is not defined in the Development Control Rules for PCMC i.e. the 'local authority' in the case before us and thus, the said enactment cannot be resorted to for the purpose of understanding the meaning of expression 'housing project' contained in s. 80-IB(10) of the Act. Therefore, so long as the claim of deduction is in relation to a 'housing project', which has been ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aining for adjudication after this is the claim of the assessee challenging the measurements of the DVO in respect of flats at Sl. no. 1 & 4 of the chart (Para 28 of this order). It is the assessee's contention that the correct measurement is 988.79 sq ft whereas the DVO has calculated the buildup area at 1029.28 sq. ft. It is also the assessee's plea that it had not been afforded a proper opportunity to explain the discrepancy before the Ld. CIT (A). Hence in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore this limited issue of discrepancy in measurement, as claimed by the assessee, to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh examination and adjudication thereon after giving due opportunity to the assessee to present its case. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed." 10. Regarding the admissibility of area of open to sky balcony in total built-up area, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee by paragraph No.3 7 of the order in the following terms: - "37. In the proceedings before us, the Department could not point out any judgment/judicial precedent to the contrary. We accordingly hold that the balconies open to the sky are....