TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (7) TMI 1362
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....als), Panaji, dated 05/11/2014. 2. In all the appeals, the common ground of appeal taken by the assessee is that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in disallowing proportionate deduction under sec. 80IB of the Act. 3. The common ground of appeal taken by the Revenue in all the years under consideration is that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to allow deduction under sec. 80IB(10) on proportionate basis. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer observed in assessment year 2007-08 that in the housing project constructed by the assessee known as "Devashri Garden - Phase I, (Building C), Soccoro, some of the residential units constructed were more than 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Court in the case of M/s. Vishwas Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT in T.C. (Appeal) No. 1014/2009 order dated 02/11/2012. 11. Being aggrieved by this order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeal before us. 12. The Revenue is in appeal before us for allowing deduction under sec. 80IB(10) to the assessee on proportionate basis and the assessee is in appeal before us against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) for disallowing the deduction under sec. 80IB(10) on proportionate basis. 13. The Departmental Representative relied on the order of the Assessing Officer. 14. On the other hand, the Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that the assessee developed an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....whose combined area was more than the maximum area allowed for one unit to be eligible for claim of deduction u/s 80 IB(10). iii) The assessee promoter, himself provided facilities for converting two units into one unit at the construction stage, itself. iv) Thus, all the conditions prescribed for availing deduction u/s.80 IB(l0) were not fulfilled. v) For claiming deduction u/s.80 IB(10), all the conditions are required to be met simultaneously. In its submission, the appellant has mainly stressed on the following aspect. i) That it has complied with all the provisions provided to claim deduction u/s.80 IB(10). ii) In the approved plan all the units were less than 1500 sq. feet each. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ger unit. This merging was done at the request of the buyers, at the construction stage itself by none other than the promoter himself. Facts of this case are similar to that of M/s. Miraj Enterprises. In this case, the A.O. disallowed the claim of deduction u/s.80 IB(10) on the ground that many units were larger than the prescribed area u/s.80 IB(10). The CIT (A), in his order directed the A.O. to allow deduction, because the alterations were made after the flats were sold, which was beyond the control of the promoter. The ITAT confirmed the order of the CIT (A) and Honourable High Court dismissed the appeal of the revenue, saying that no substantial question of law arise. The only difference in facts in the above mentioned case and the in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t-up area in some of the flats in both these projects are in excess of 1500 sq.ft., i.e., 32 flats in Agrini and only one flat in Vajra and that the assessee had not claimed any deduction on this. We hold that the Tribunal is not correct in its view, that by reason of these Units being in excess of 1500 sq.ft., the entire claim of the assessee in respect of these two projects would stand rejected under Section 80 IB(10) of the Income Tax Act. Thus, going by the definition of "housing project" under Explanation to Section 8OHHBA of the Act as referred to above as the construction of "any building" and the wordings in Section 801B(10) of the Act, the question of rejection in entirely of the project on account of any one of the blocks not comp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee's case before us. 6.2. In the light of the above reasoning, we have no hesitation in allowing the 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 80 IB(10) of the Act, the assessee would be entitled to the relief on a proportionate basis." Thus, it is clear that the facts are identical in the instant case to that of discussed above. Relying on the above quoted decis....