TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (6) TMI 1051
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for two different assessment years but the facts and issues involved in both the appeals are identical except for the assessment year and the amounts involved and therefore the submissions made by them while arguing one appeal would be equally applicable to the other appeal also and thus both the appeals can be heard together. In view of the aforesaid submissions of both the parties, we, for the sake of convenience, proceed to dispose of both the appeals by a consolidated order but however, proceed with narrating the facts in ITA No.1439/PUN/2017 for assessment year 2011-12. 3. The relevant facts as culled out from the material on record are as under :- Assessee is a company stated to be engaged as Builders and Developers. Assessee e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeals) - 7 Pune may be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer be restored." 4. Similar grounds have been raised in I.T.A. No.1440/PUN/2017 for A.Y. 2012-13. 5. AO noticed that assessee had constructed a project called as "Sun Orbit" at Sun City Road, Anand Nagar, Pune. AO noted that while completing the assessment for A.Y. 2010-11, it was noticed that in respect of "B" Building, the area of 10 flats exceeded 1500 sq. ft. AO was of the view that as per the provisions of Clause (d) of Sec.80IB(10) of the Act, the built up area of a flat in the housing project should not exceed 1500 sq.ft. In case of assessee since the conditions specified in clause (d) of Sec.80IB(10) of the Act were not fulfilled, AO was of the view that the profit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....11 and without there being any change in facts, the order of Ld.CIT(A) needs to be upheld. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present case is with respect to the claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. We find that in A.Y. 2010-11, the claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act was denied for the entire project by the AO. Thereafter, the matter was carried before the first appellate authority and Ld.CIT(A) allowed the claim of deduction with respect to the units which were having area less than 1500 sq.ft. Against the order of Ld.CIT(A), Revenue and assessee had carried the matter before the Tribunal. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal (in ITA Nos.981 & 1015/PUN/2015 order d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal walls at 18" at six places which was in actual a double wall taken as an architectural projection for aesthetic purpose whereas the Architects had considered the thickness of the wall at 6" which was as per the sanctioned plan. We find that CIT(A) in his order has also noted that the Valuer approved by Revenue had not given the breakup of the calculation for arriving at the area exceeding 1500 sq.ft. for 10 flats. He has also noted that that Shri Ruparel has observed that as a general trend prevalent in the industry, the architectural projections in the form of features, chajjas, hollow boxes, solid boxes for enhancing the aesthetics of the building which is also allowed by the local authorities are not counted by any Corporati....