2015 (10) TMI 2755

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in allowing deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the Act in respect of project Kumar Kruti and Kumar Shantiniketan ? 2) The Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in not appreciating the import of Section 80IB(10) which speaks about sanction to the 'housing project' and not to the individual buildings in the project? 3) The Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) 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 801B(10) of the Act? 4) The Learned ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....relation to the claim of deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act in respect of project Kumar Kruti and Kumar Shantiniketan. 4. Briefly, in the facts of the present case, the assessee was engaged in the business of developing residential projects in Pune. During the year under consideration, the assessee had claimed deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act for the project Kumar Shantiniketan, which was situated at S.No.138/5, Pashan and comprised of 8 buildings. The assessee was recognizing the income by following the percentage completion method of accounting. The Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings noted that in respect of the said project, two of the flats bearing Nos.3 and 4 in 'D' Building had a garde....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the said project, 8 of the flats were found to have area more than maximum permissible area of 1500 sq. ft. Since the flats had garden area for exclusive use of the flat owners of 635 sq. ft., the said garden area was not on the ground floor, but was area of said 8 flats, the total area of the flat was 2029 sq. ft., which was more than the maximum permissible built up area and following the assessment orders relating to assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10, the deduction claimed under section 80IB(10) of the Act in respect of project Kumar Kruti was denied to the assessee. 5. The CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee in turn, following the ratio laid down by Pune Bench of Tribunal in assessee's own case in ITA No.1164/PN/2012 relating....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uction in respect of project Kumar Shantiniketan. Two of the flat bearing Nos.3 and 4 in building 'D' had covered area exceeding 1500 sq.ft. and on that basis, the deduction claimed under section 80IB(10) of the Act was denied to the assessee. The Tribunal had in the earlier years relating to assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10, allowed the claim of assessee with directions to the Assessing Officer to allow prorata deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act and denied the said deduction in respect of two flats i.e. flat Nos.3 and 4 in building 'D', which had covered area of more than prescribed limit. The relevant findings of the Tribunal are reproduced under para 4.2 at pages 9 to 11 of the appellate order, which are being referred to, b....