TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (9) TMI 1905
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ollowing grounds of appeal:- 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in allowing deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act when the plot was divided into two parts due to 30 meters reservation on DP road & 30 meters reservation for HCMTR, as a result plot area of both the buildings located at Plot No.I & II was less than 1 acre individually, without considering the facts elaborated by the AO? 2. The order of CIT(A) may be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 5. The assessee in CO No.40/PUN/2018, relating to assessment year 2011-12 has raised the following ground of objections: 1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not deciding the additional ground of appeal that the additions in assessment proceedings are beyond the jurisdiction in view of the fact that there was no incriminating material found during the course of search. 6. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) in allowing deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act on the project where plot was divided into two parts due to 30 meters reservation on DP road and 30 meters reservation for HCMTR. 7. The learned Autho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Assessing Officer in the present year also, took note of the said fact, against which the assessee claimed that the issue has been decided in its favour by the Pune Bench of Tribunal. However, since an appeal was filed before the Hon'ble High Court, the Assessing Officer in order to keep the issue alive, denied the claim of deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act. The CIT(A) however, following the order of Tribunal in assessee's own case allowed the aforesaid claim, against which the Revenue is in appeal. 10. We find that the issue is squarely covered by the order of Tribunal (supra) in assessee's own case, wherein in para 3 it was observed that the total area of plot was 6900 sq.mtrs. and after reducing 300 sq.mtrs. for project road, remaining area was 6600 sq.mtrs. The first approval of PMC authorities was given on 28.04.2005 and in the said approval, area of land was shown at 6600 sq.mtrs. The Tribunal further noted that 30 mtrs. wide DP road as well as 30 mtrs for HCMTR reservation was there in between the plot and because of which the plot was divided into two parts i.e. Plot No.I and Plot No.II in the area statement. The Tribunal held that the issue regarding two plots....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion under section 80IB(10) of the Act in violation of clause (f) of the said section. The Assessing Officer did not accept the claim of prorata deduction to be allowed to the assessee. 16. The CIT(A) however, vide paras 10.4 to 10.4.2 deliberated on the issue of multiple allotments and held it entitled to claim deduction on prorata basis except for the profits arising on sale of two flats out of i.e. Flat Nos.A8-302 and 303, which were allotted to Mrs.Khushboo Kularia and Mr. Ashok Kularia (wife & husband) and A2-103 and 104 allotted to Mrs. Snehlata Joshi and Mr. Vasant Hoshi (wife & husband). The CIT(A) was of the view that the profits on allotment of flats to individual spouses were not eligible for deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act. The Assessing Officer was directed to verify the correctness of the profits worked out by the assessee on sale of flats allotted in violation of clause (f) of section 80IB(10) of the Act and also to include on-money, if any, received on sale of said flats and thereafter, disallow deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act on the profits derived from sale of two flats. 17. The Revenue is in appeal against the order of CIT(A). 18.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ats and consequently, upholding the said directions, we dismiss the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue. 21. Now, coming to the Cross Objections filed by the assessee, wherein the assessee is aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) in not allowing deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act on prorata basis in respect of profits from Club house in the project 'Leelawati Greens' for want of completion certificate. The assessee had also constructed Club house within the said project 'Leelawati Greens'. However, the assessee did not furnish the requisite document before the Assessing Officer i.e. no completion certificate was furnished before the Assessing Officer and hence, the Assessing Officer held the assessee not entitled to the claim of deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act. 22. Before the CIT(A), the assessee furnished additional evidence by way of application submitted for completion certificate within time frame allowed, which was admitted as additional evidence after confronting the same to Assessing Officer. The assessee further placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Hindustan Samuh Awas Ltd. reported in 377 ITR 150 (Bom) for th....