2020 (3) TMI 502

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Act, 1961, as amended from time to time, a sum of Rs. 4,99,11,555/- and it was processed on 27.02.2010. The Assessing Officer, in the course of completing assessment for the Assessment Year 2009-10, noticed the fact that the Assessee did obtain plan for construction of the entire plot of measuring slightly over one acre, where blocks ranging from A to L were constructed. It was also noticed that each block of flat was constructed on a plot measuring less than one acre and therefore, the Assessing Officer held that the project was not an unified project in an extent of one acre and treated each approval as a separate project extending in an area less than one acre and therefore, not allowed the claim of deduction under the said Section. The....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....acks merit and accordingly, dismissed the appeal. (5)The Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] had also considered the plea as to the development of composite project in the proposed site in S.Nos.486/1 and 482 and recorded a finding that at no point of time, the Assessee considered each plot as a separate project and it was considered as a single project and development was also on those lines. Thus, the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals], by taking into consideration, the facts and circumstances of the case, especially, the above cited judgment dated 12.11.2014 in TCA.No.257 of 2012, has allowed the appeal filed by the Assessee partly, vide order dated 24.10.2016. (6)The Revenue, aggrieved by the same, filed a further appeal before th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... area of certain residential units exceeded the 1500 sq.ft. which was in violation of conditions specified in Section 80IB[10][c]? (9)Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Revenue would contend that the projects was developed in an area abutting two streets and therefore, it should be considered as separate projects and for the purpose of circumventing the Development Control Rules of CMDA, the project was developed separately and therefore, the Assessee was disentitled from availing the benefits of Section 80-IB[10] of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and also took a stand that challenging the legality of the judgment dated 12.11.2014 made in TCA.No.257 of 2012, the Revenue has preferred a Special Leave Petition before the H....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dgment dated 12.11.2014, in TCA.No.257 of 2012, had answered the questions of law and has taken note of the earlier common judgment dated 01.11.2012 made in TC[A] Nos.581 an 582 of 2011 and 314 and 315 of 2012, which came to be decided in favour of the Assessee, holding that for the purpose of considering deduction, it is not necessary that the Assessee, engaged in developing and construction of housing project and the only point is that he should be the owner of the property. (13)It is also brought to the notice of this Court that so far, no challenge has been made to the common judgment dated 01.11.2012 in TCA.Nos.581 and 582 of 2011 and 314 and 315 of 2012. (14)The ITAT, on facts also found that the Assessee has obtained approvals of t....