TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (10) TMI 1031
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CIT (A) is not justified in confirming the denial of claim of deduction of Rs. 56,05,926 made by the appellant u/s 80IB of the I.T. Act. 2. That the learned CIT (A) has wrongly interpreted the provision of section 80IB of the I.T. Act both in respect of the provisions prior to the amendment made by the Finance Act 2004 and also post amendment and is wrong in denying the deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the appellant. 3. That the appellant craves leaves to add, alter, amend or withdraw any or all the grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing". 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an AOP engaged in the business of development of land and construction of houses, filed its return of income for the A.Y 2007-08....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he local authorities for approving the final project and if the local authorities did not issue the project completion certificate as requested by the assessee, it is not possible to submit the same to the Revenue authorities. It was also observed that all the evidence from the records do indicate that the assessee had completed the project and therefore, the deduction cannot be denied only on the basis that the assessee could not furnish the completion certificate. Thus, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that this being the subsequent years of deduction u/s 80IB(10), the same cannot be denied to the assessee. 4. The learned DR, on the other hand, supported the orders of the authorities below. 5. Having regard to the riva....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... started w.e.f. 10-07-1999 i.e., immediately after sanction of building plans. 11. The above chronological events were not disputed by the either of the parties. It was only the contention of the later AO that since assessee has purchased the land as early as 1996, the project was to be deemed to have started then and the same was prior to 01-10-1998. Therefore, the assessee is not eligible for deduction. This contention cannot be accepted as the project was not even approved by the local authorities. Not even by 01-10-1998, as can be seen from the approvals stated above. Therefore, the project has started after 01-10- 1998 and therefore, the contention of the AO that the project started before that date is not factually correct. M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Supreme Court and by the judgment in the case of CIT-19, Mumbai Vs. M/s. Sarkar Builders (supra), this issue was set at rest by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while examining the amended provisions of the Section 80IB. (extracts) "We are concerned with the amendment to the said sub-section carried out by Finance No.2, Act, 2004 w.e.f. 01-04-2005. In all these cases, though the housing projects were sanctioned much before the said amendment but have been completed after 01-04-2005 when amended provision has come into operation. It is also not in dispute that the amendment is prospective in nature. Interestingly, when the housing project was approved by a local authority, which is the requirement under sub-section (10) of Section 80I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ese developers/assessees who had got their projects sanctioned from the local authorities as 'housing projects' even with commercial user, though limited to the extent permitted under the DC Rules, were convinced that they would be getting the benefit of 100% deduction of their income from such projects under Section 80IB of the Act. Their projects were sanctioned much before 01-04-2005. As per the permissible commercial user on which the project was sanctioned, they started the projects and the date of commencing such project is also before 01-04-2005. All these assessees were made known of the provision by which these projects are to be completed as those dates have been specified from time to time by successive Finance Acts in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessees to do something which is almost impossible". Respectfully following the same, we are of the opinion that assessee cannot be compelled to comply with the condition or fulfill the condition which was not stipulated at the time of sanction of the project. The case law relied on by Ld. DR does not apply on facts and also in view of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court cited above.. 14. Apart from the judicial principles as stated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, even on facts also the deduction cannot be denied. Assessee has completed its project by 31-03-2008 and has requested the local authorities for approving the final project. If the local authorities did not issue the 'Project Completion Certificate' ....