TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (5) TMI 1485
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see vide CC/9495/G/95 dated 14-02-2007. After this revised commencement certificates were received as follows : CC/4416/06 dated 17-03-2007 CC/3970/09 dated 29-03-2010 CC/2483/12 dated 21-11-2012 CC/2483/2012 dated 27-11-2012 3. The AO noted from the original plan passed that there are 3 buildings, viz., A, B and C. However, the assessee submitted completion certificates only for buildings B and C. He, therefore, asked the assessee to explain as to why deduction claimed u/s.80IB(10) should not be disallowed on account of this fact. The AO also issued a Commission u/s.131(1)(d) to Shri Nitin Lele (Government Registered Valuer) to inspect the site and submit a report on the lines of provisions specified u/s.80IB(10). Shri Nitin Lele submitted in his report that there is no separate plan or any Sub-Division of plot by the assessee to claim deduction only for Buildings B and C which are complete. The AO referred to a decision of the CIT(A) in the case of Suvarna Mutha Developer where pro-rata deduction has been disallowed. He also referred to the provisions of section 80IB(10). The AO further noted that the date of first approval of the project is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in respect of Buildings which were completed, i.e. Buildings B and C. 5. Based on the arguments advanced by the assessee and relying on various decisions the Ld.CIT(A) allowed the pro-rata deduction u/s.80IB(10) to the assessee by observing as under : "4.2 I have considered the submission made by the appellant and perused material on record. The only issue contested relates to the disallowance of the claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) on account of non-completion of the housing project. The material and facts on record indicate that the housing project undertaken by the appellant was first approved by the local authority on 14.02.2007 vide commencement certificate no. CC/9495/G/95 which contained buildings A, B & C. The said plan has been revised subsequently on 17.03.2007, 29.03.2010 and 27.11.2012. The appellant completed the buildings B & C comprising of 28 flats and 42 flats respectively for which the occupancy/completion certificates have also been obtained on 30.03.2010. The Govt. Approved Valuer has also examined the said buildings and found the conditions u/s. 80IB(10) to have been fulfilled with respect to them i.e. buildings B & C. The only point of dispute and r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fied u/s. 80IB(10). 4.3 So far as the contention of the Assessing Officer that only the B & C buildings to have been completed and occupancy certificates obtained leaving the A building incomplete and not completed having led to noncompletion of the housing project, it is seen that the plot area of the buildings 'B' &'C' is 5967 sq.mtrs which is more than one acre and the aforesaid two buildings have complied with all the conditions as stipulated in section 80IB(10) as is evident from the observation as reported by the Govt. Approved Valuer Shri Nitin Lele. 4.3.1. Hence, the claim of the appellant that the buildings, B and C having been duly completed on or before 31.03.2012 and also satisfies the condition of section 80IB(10) are eligible for deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act on a proportionate basis if the entire project is taken as one finds support from several judicial precedents also relied upon by the appellant. 4.4. In the case at Brigade Enterprises (P) Ltd. (supra), the facts were that the assessee formed a single project by name 'Brigade, Millennium" comprising a total area of 22 acres and 19 guntas in Survey. Nos. 44, 45 and, 51/1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iates Vs. Jt. CIT (2009) 119 ITD 255, held that deduction could not be totally denied and it would be eligible for proportionate deduction." 4.4.4 In this regard the decision of the Pune ITAT in the case of Rahul Construction Co. Vs. ITO, ITA No.1250/PN/2009 and ITA No.707/PN/2010 dated 30-03-2012 held as under : "9, There is no dispute on, from material facts that out of 16 buildings in the housing project of the assessee only 11 buildings were completed within the prescribed time-limit up to 31-3-2008. The layout plan in respect of entire complex was sanctioned by PMC vide order dated 3-4-2003 and the building plan was sanctioned vide, commencement certificate dated 29- 4-2003. Admittedly, the term 'housing project' has not been defined in the Act but in the context of deduction under section 80IB(10) an Explanation has been provided below clause (a) to sub-section (10 ) to section 80IB. The very reading of above Explanation (i), makes it clear that for the eligibility of the deduction provided under section 80-IB(10), the date on which building plan of a housing project has been firstly approved by the local authority will be treated as approval in resp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as consumed by other residential units wherein the size of individual unit exceeded 1500 sq.ft. of built up area. Under these circumstances, the assessee had claimed deduction u/s.80IB(10) with reference to the profit attributable to the built up area which was occupied by residential units having individual flat size of less than 1500 sq.ft. The AO rejected the claim of the assessee u/s.80IB(10), inter alia, observing that as per the terms of sec.80IB(10), all the units comprised in the housing project should have had individual flat size of less than 1500 sq.ft. In the backdrop of these facts, the Tribunal observed that the provisions laid down in sec.80IB(10) do not speak regarding such denial of deduction in case of profit from a housing complex both the smaller and large residential units and since the assessee had claimed only deduction on account of smaller qualifying units fulfilling all the conditions as laid down u/s.80IB(10), the denial of claim by the AO was not justified. 4.4.7 In Vishwas Promoters (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT & Ors (2013) 50(I) TICL - 274 (Mad) it was held that the assessee was entitled to claim deduction in respect of all the block forming part of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 80IB(10) which speaks 'about sanction to the 'housing project' and not to the individual buildings in the project. 3. The learned Commissioner of lncome-tax Appeals) erred in not appreciating the fact that the original plan passed by local authority constructed of three buildings A,B& C and plan was not revised and only B&C were shown as completed within the prescribed due date. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in allowing pro-rata claim of deduction u/s. 80IB(10) in 'respect of eligible flats in the project inspite of violation of clause (c) without appreciating the fact that jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Brahma Associates, 333 ITR 289 held that deduction is allowable on the entire project approved by the Local Authority and there is no question of allowing deduction to a part of the project. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any or all the grounds of appeal." 7. The Ld. Departmental Representative referring to the assessment order submitted that the AO has given justifiable reasons for rejecting the claim of deduction u/s.80IB(10). He submitted that there is no concept o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eduction of Rs. 3,05,70,196/- made by the assessee u/s.80IB(10). In appeal the Ld.CIT(A) following various decisions allowed the claim of pro-rata deduction in respect of Buildings B and C which were completed. 10. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) granting pro-rata deduction to the assessee in respect of Buildings B and C which were completed. We find the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Kumar Company while deciding identical issue had allowed the claim of pro-rata deduction by observing as under : "12. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the AO and CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. The only dispute in the impugned grounds raised by the assessee is regarding allowability of pro-rata deduction u/s.80IB(10) in respect of the housing project 'Kumar Padmalaya' where admittedly some of the units have not been completed before 31-03-2008. According to the revenue, for claiming deduction u/s.80IB(10) the assessee has to fulfil all the conditions laid down in section 80IB(10) and there is no concept of pro-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the claim of the assessee for the entire projects. Consequently, in respect of each of the blocks, the assessee is entitled to have the benefit of deduction in respect of residential units satisfying the requirement under Section 80IB(10)(c) of the Act. In so holding, we also agree with the decision of the Bombay High Court reported in [2012] 206 TAXMAN 584 (CIT v. Vandana Properties), which was decided by the Bombay High Court on similar lines as in the assessee's case before us. 15. In the light of the above reasoning, we have no hesitation in allowing the cases cases filed by the assessee in respect of assessment years 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09, thereby answering the substantial questions of law in favour of the assessee, that the assessee is entitled to the claim of deduction in respect of all the blocks forming part of the projects called Agrini and Vajra, but to the extent of each of the blocks satisfying the conditions under Section 80IB(10) of the Act, the assessee would be entitled to the relief on a proportionate basis." 14. We find following the above decision the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Padmavati Developer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., we hold that the assessee is entitled to pro-rata deduction in respect of the buildings/units of the housing project 'Kumar Padmalaya' which have complied with the conditions laid down in section 80IB(10) of the Act. In other words, the AO cannot reject the claim of deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the entire project for non-completion of the few buildings. We therefore set aside the order of Ld.CIT(A) and direct the AO to allow pro-rata deduction claimed u/s.80IB(10) in respect of project 'Kumar Padmalaya'. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed. 11. We find the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Elegant Estates (Supra) following the decision of CIT Vs. Arun Excello Fondations Pvt. Ltd., reported in 212 taxmann 342 has allowed prorata deduction. 12. We find the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Subash S. Bafna (Supra) after considering the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Brahma Associates has allowed the claim of pro-rata deduction by observing as under : "7. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) and the Paper Book filed on beha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n excess of the prescribed limit and (c) that the assessee has claimed deduction u/s.80IB(10) since A.Y. 2001-02 and the assessee is showing the entire project as a single project. We find the Ld.CIT(A), on the basis of the additional evidences filed before him and the remand report obtained from the AO, held that the projects (A) and (B) undertaken by the assessee are two different projects. The relevant observations of the Ld.CIT(A) are already reproduced at para 4.1 of the impugned order. The revenue is not in appeal before us on this issue. Therefore, this issue on which the AO has denied the deduction is not relevant. 14. However, the Ld.CIT(A) upheld the action of the AO in denying the claim of deduction on the other reasons stated by the AO, i.e. (a) the completion certificate has not been obtained on or before 31-03-2008 (b) that the assessee did not explain anything about Project B and (c) that the project includes shops and commercial area in excess of the prescribed limit. 14.1 From the details furnished by the assessee in the Paper Book we find the details of completion certificate No and date and the reference to the date of application are as under :....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g A relates back to the application dated 04-04-2006. 14.3 We find merit in the above submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. It has not been disputed by the Revenue that the assessee has not applied to the Municipal Corporation for issue of completion certificate on 04-04-2006 for Project A and building I & K of Project B. It is also not in dispute that the completion certificate issued by the PMC dated 31-03-2010 for Buildings of Project A is not with reference to application dated 04-04-2006. Therefore, in our opinion, the completion certificate issued on 31- 03-2010 with reference to the application dated 04-04-2006 for Project A relates back to the date of application, i.e. 04-04-2006. 14.4 The second issue on which the Ld.CIT(A) completed the denial of deduction u/s.80IB(10) is that nothing was explained about Project B. As already mentioned earlier completion certificate for Building G & H of Project B has already been granted on 05-10-2005 which is not disputed by the Revenue since a copy of the same was filed before the AO & CIT(A) as certified in the Paper Book and not disputed by the Revenue. So far as the building I + K of Project B is concerne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....days from the date of submission of the completion certificate which was submitted on 04-04-2006. The Revenue has not disputed the above facts. 14.7 We find the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Tarnetar Corporation (Supra) has held as under : "5. We have perused the detailed discussion of the CIT (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal on the issue. In particular, the Tribunal noted that the construction was completed in 2006. Application for BU permission to the Municipal authorities was filed on 15.2.2006 which was rejected on 1.7.06. Several residential units were occupied since the same was done without necessary permission. The assessee had also paid penalty and got such occupation regularized. Several tenements were sold long before the last date. 6. In the present case, therefore, the fact that the assessee had completed the construction well before 31st March, 2008 is not in doubt. It is, of course, true that formally BU permission was not granted by the Municipal Authority by such date. It is equally true that explanation to clause (a) to section 80-IB(10) links the completion of the construction to the BU permission being granted by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....deduction in respect of whole project has rightly been rejected because deduction u/s.80IB(10) could not be granted to assessee on incomplete construction at relevant point of time. Regarding proportionate deduction in respect of 173 of 205 flats of project completed as recognized by local authority, i.e., PMC in its completion certificate No.BCO/03/01333 dated 31.03.2008, the Ld. Authorised Representative heavily relied on decision of Bengal Ambuja Housing Development Ltd. (supra), Brigade Enterprises P. Ltd. (supra), AIR Developer (supra), Sheth Developers (supra) and also G.V.Corporation (supra), wherein deduction u/s.80IB(10) was denied as size of some of the residential units exceeded prescribed limit as laid down u/s.80IB(10) of the Act. Above mentioned decisions are applicable in their own sphere, i.e. on point of excess area of some of the flats which hold good in its own sphere. However, in case before us, deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the Act has been rejected on the ground that condition of completion of project before the due date i.e., 31.03.2008 as laid down u/s.80IB(10)(c) of the Act, has not been complied by assessee which is basic condition for allowability of deductio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....advance the object of provision and not to frustrate the same. The provisions of taxing statute should be construed harmoniously with the object of statue to effectuate the legislative intention. In view of above facts and circumstances, we hold that assessee is entitled for benefit u/s.80IB(10) of the Act in respect of 173 flats completed before prescribed limit. The Assessing Officer is directed accordingly." 14.10 We find the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Runwal Multihousing Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) has observed as under : "18. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the AO and the CIT(A) and the Paper Book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. We find in the instant case the assessee obtained the permission for construction of buildings A, B, C, D, E, F and 17 row houses on 12-12-2001. The assessee constructed building Nos. A,C, D and E and the 17 row houses and dropped the idea of construction of Building Nos. B and F being uneconomical and had not submitted any revised plan to PMC. Although the assessee applied for completion certificate on 22-01-2004,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pplied for the same, but since the matter is subjudice the PMC is not able to grant the Completion Certificate. The very local authority which is responsible for granting the Completion Certificate has a legal problem which is subjudice. Q.10. As stated answering the Question No.9, please state when you have applied for Completion Certificate in respect of Runwal Paradise Project and also submit the relevant applications? Ans. We have applied for Completion Certificate for the entire project. We are submitting herewith the application for Completion Certificate dated 22-01-2004vide Commencement Certificate No.1372 dated 10-01-2002 as per Annexure "C". The copies of any further application, if any, we will submit the same on 2nd June 2008. Q.12. As per revised building layout sanctioned on 10-01-2003, you got approval for construction of buildings A to F and row houses 1 to 18 in Runwal paradise Project. However as seen from the list of Flat Holders submitted by you as Annexure "D" and also the inspection carried out at the site of Runwal Paradise located at S.No.981, at Paud Road, Kothrud, Pune, the construction of buildings B and F is yet to be completed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e that the completion is beyond the mandated date of 31-3-2008. In this background, we find that there is no dispute that the assessee applied for obtaining the completion certificate in respect of building 'E' on 12-3-2008. From the discussion made by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order, wherein the factual assertions of the assessee have been reproduced, it is quite evident that the assessee asserted that before 31-3-2008, the construction of building was complete in all respects; that electrical connection was provided to each flat owner; road was complete; water and drainage connection was available; sewerage system was operating; club house was functional; etc. The assessee also pointed out that the local authority had also initiated property tax assessments for each of the flats and the same demonstrated that all the flats in the building were complete. In fact, in para 6.9 of the assessment order, the Assessing Officer noticed that "the facts that the flats were completed and possession given will not come to the rescue of the assessee". The aforesaid finding of the Assessing Officer supports the assertion made by the assessee that factually speaking constr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uthority. In such circumstances, in our opinion, the delay in obtaining the completion certificate on 10-10-2008 is certainly not attributable to the assessee and obtaining the said certificate before 31-3-2008 is beyond the control of the assessee. Assessee's job includes the completion of the building in accordance with the approved plans and intimation of the same to the local authority by way of filing the requisite forms together with the completion certificate given by the Architect, the specialist in the matter and the assessee has done his job scrupulously in this case. However, the local authority has neither objected to the said application of the assessee and the Architect by raising any objections for accepted by issue of said completion certificate till 10- 10-2008. Therefore, the delay in grant of the said certificate is certainly not attributable to the assessee. Therefore, in our opinion, the assessee is not defaulter on this account and thus, the AO has erred in denying the deduction u/s 80-IB(10) of the Act. Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) has to be reversed. Thus, the grounds raised in the appeal are allowed" 13. The aforesaid decision of the Tr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er the situation? Can an Explanation appended to a section, enlarge the scope of the main section so as to make it more onerous for a tax- payer? Be that as it may, we do not dwell on this aspect any further, as the assessee has been found to be eligible for necessary relief because the condition prescribed in section 80-IB(10)(a)(i) of the Act has been complied with in view of the stated precedents. We therefore, set aside the order of the CIT(A) on this aspect and hold that the assessee cannot be denied the claim of deduction u/s 80-IB(10) on the strength of non-issuance of the completion certificate for building 'E' by the Pune Municipal Corporation before 31-3-2008, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case." 20.2 We find the Hon'ble Gujarat High court in the case of CIT Vs. Tarnetar Corporation (Supra) has held as under : "With respect to the second contention, we may record that the contention of the Revenue is that the assessee did not complete the housing project within the statutory time frame. Under sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of section 80IB(10), the assessee since had got approval for the housing projects from the local authorit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lable. In the present case, the facts are peculiar. The assessee had not only completed the construction two years before the final date and had applied for BU permission. Such BU permission was not rejected on the ground that construction was not completed, but the some other technical ground. In that view of the matter, granting benefit of deduction cannot be held to be illegal. In the result, the Tax Appeal is dismissed". 20.3. We find the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Samuha Awas Ltd. Vs. ITO vide ITA Nos 945 to 950/PN/2010 order dated 30-08-2011 has held as under : "7. We have considered the above view points of the parties in disputed. We find that it is a fact that the assessee through its architect had filed application with the AMC for issuance of occupancy certificate on 25-3-2008. Requisite fee was also paid by the assessee in this regard. AMC did not raise any objection to the said completion certificate of the Architect. The occupancy certificate dt.10-10-2008 has been issued by the AMC only on the basis of the said application dt.25-3-2008. It is also an undisputed fact that issuance of occupancy certificate is the prer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd with this understanding the Legislature have also introduced a deeming provision of 21 days to put constraint upon PMC, we after detailed deliberation in precedign paragraphs have come to a conclusion that in case of small objections of PMC raised after expiry of deeming period of 21 days under Rule 7.7 of DC Rules under PMC, the date when the applicant acquired deeming sanction will be treated as the date of Completion (occupancy) Certificate to meet out the requirement of Explanation (ii) to Section 80IB (10)(a) of the Act. We have already discussed hereinabove what would be the small objections. In brief those objections which do not affect the main project and are generally temporary constructions. 20. We thus while setting aside orders of the authorities below direct the A.O to allow the claimed deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the I.T. Act 1961 in the assessment years under consideration treating the required date of completion of construction of the housing project as the date when above discussed deeming provision period of 21 days expired i.e. 20.11.20." B. Extract from the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sanghvi & Doshi Enterprise vide ITA NO. 259 T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rent matter that CMDA raised certain objections and the matter went upto the Hon'ble High Court also. However, the fact remains that the project was completed much before the due date, may be with certain defects. Also, it has to be noted that the CMDA certificate is dated 13.6.2008, i.e. only two months and thirteen days beyond the due date. It is inconceivable that the type of defects which were pointed out by the CMDA could have been rectified in such a short period. Be that as it may, the Hon'ble High Court also ratified the deviations and directed the CMDA to consider the explanation of the assessee. All these facts go to point that the project was indeed completed before the 31.3.2008. Thus, this ground also has no force to deny the assessee the impugned deduction. " C Extract from the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. D.K.Construction vide ITA 243/Ind/2010 "7. We have considered the rival contentions, carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below and relevant material placed on record towards which our attention was invited during the course of hearing by the ld. Authorized Representative and the ld. Senior D.R. Provisions of Section....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fore, do not find may merit in the observation of the lower authorities to the effect that the date of completion shall be taken the date on which certificate is physically issued by the Local Authorities." 9. From the above, one this is clear that the date that appear on the Architect's Completion certificate filed before the local authority is a relevant one. In the instant case, the said date is 25-3-2008 and the assessee filed requisite form before the local authorities intimating the completion of the project. The said certificate/ intimation was accepted by the local authority without any amendments or objections. Local authority has not raised any queries on the quality construction of the building or the completion of the same as per the plans approved by such authority. In such circumstances, in our opinion, the delay in obtaining the completion certificate on 10-10-2008 is certainly not attributable to the assessee and obtaining the said certificate before 31.3.2008 is beyond the control of the assessee. Assessee's job includes the completion of the building in accordance with the approved plans and intimation of the same to the local authority by way of filing t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng whole deduction in respect of whole project has rightly been rejected because deduction u/s.80IB(10) could not be granted to assessee on incomplete construction at relevant point of time. Regarding proportionate deduction in respect of 173 of 205 flats of project completed as recognized by local authority, i.e., PMC in its completion certificate No.BCO/03/01333 dated 31.03.2008, the Ld. Authorised Representative heavily relied on decision of Bengal Ambuja Housing Development Ltd. (supra), Brigade Enterprises P. Ltd. (supra), AIR Developer (supra), Sheth Developers (supra) and also G.V.Corporation (supra), wherein deduction u/s.80IB(10) was denied as size of some of the residential units exceeded prescribed limit as laid down u/s.80IB(10) of the Act. Above mentioned decisions are applicable in their own sphere, i.e. on point of excess area of some of the flats which hold good in its own sphere. However, in case before us, deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the Act has been rejected on the ground that condition of completion of project before the due date i.e., 31.03.2008 as laid down u/s.80IB(10)(c) of the Act, has not been complied by assessee which is basic condition for allowability of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....so as to advance the object of provision and not to frustrate the same. The provisions of taxing statute should be construed harmoniously with the object of statue to effectuate the legislative intention. In view of above facts and circumstances, we hold that assessee is entitled for benefit u/s.80IB(10) of the Act in respect of 173 flats completed before prescribed limit. The Assessing Officer is directed accordingly. 7. As a result, the appeal of the assessee is disposed off as indicated above." In the light of the above discussion the order of the CIT(A) denying benefit of deduction u/s.80IB(10) for non-receipt of completion certificate is set-aside and the grounds raised by the assessee on this issue are allowed." 14.11 In view of the above decisions the first issue on which the Ld.CIT(A) denied the deduction u/s.80IB(10) i.e., the project is not complete before 31-03-2008 is not correct since the assessee in the instant case has applied for the completion of the project vide letter dt. 04-04-2006 and the PMC has issued certificate on 31-03-2010 with reference to the application dt. 04-04-2006, therefore, the completion certificate by PMC relates back....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... comes to implementation. 31. Again, as held in case of CIT vs. J.H. Gotia(supra) by the Apex Court such strict construction of the statute if leads to absurd interpretation the same may not subserve the intent and object of legislation. 32. Again, as held in the case of Mysore Minerals Ltd. vs. Commission of Income-Tax reported in 239 ITR 775, Apex Court with two possibilities of interpretation of a taxing statute, one which is favourable to the assessee should be always preferred. 33. As also laid down in the case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax reported in 196 ITR 188 (SC), taxing statute granting incentives for promoting economic growth and development should be liberally construed to facilitate and advance the objectives of the provision. 34. Above discussion cumulatively when examined with the objectives and intent it sought to achieve in bringing about the said provision of Section 80IB(10), this amended taxing statute requires to be interpreted in favour of the assessee rather than insisting upon strict compliance leading to absurdity. 35. It can be also held that this being a substantive amendment and not a cl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e present case. The assessee could not explain the reason for non issuance of completion certificate by the local authority in the case of Sainath Estates Pvt. Ltd. (Supra). However, in the instant case the completion certificate has been issued on 30-03-2010 with respect to the occupancy certificate issued by the architect on 04- 04-2006. Further, the delay in issue of completion certificate was not for completing the project but on technical grounds, i.e. non payment of the compounding fees of Rs. 2,41,865/- for unauthorized constructions which the assessee has denied all along and non allotment of certain built up area to the economically weaker section of the society which the assessee has complied before 31-03-2008. So far as the decision in the case of Everest Home Construction (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) to the proposition that the amendment brought in by the Finance Act, 2004 is applicable to A.Y. 2005-06 and onwards, even if the project is approved before 31-03-2005 we find the same is not applicable in view of the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Manan Corporation (Supra) which has already been reproduced. Further, the decision of a High Court would pre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a local authority and the said project also stands completed on 20-03-2004 and thus the amendment made by the Finance (No.2) Act 2004 cannot be invoked to dis-entitle assessee's claim of deduction u/s.80IB(10) for the Assessment Years 2005-06 and 2006-07 as well. The aforesaid conclusion of the Tribunal was also based on certain precedents which are as under : 1. Open Shelters Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITA No.219/PN/2010 for A.Y. 2005-06 order dated 31-05-2010 2. G.K. builders in ITA No.1077 and 1078/PN/2010 for A.Y. 2005- 06 and 2006-07 order dated 30-07-2012 3. Hiranandani Akruti JV Vs. Dy. CIT reported in 39 SOT 498 (Mumbai) The Tribunal also considered the judgments of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Brahma Associates (2011) 333 ITR 289 (Bom.) to hold that amendments in question are to be seen as prospective in nature. 8. Apart from the aforesaid we may also notice the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Manan Corporation Vs. ACIT dated 03-09-2012 wherein the bone of contention was the applicability of the requirements contained in Clause (d) of section 80IB(10) of the Act. The Revenue had canvassed that....