TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (12) TMI 90
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... I. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in disallowing the deductions claimed under s. 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act on the basis that certain flats of the project were sold to the same person/family, without appreciating that there was no such bar in law as on the date of the commencement of the project as also on the date of relevant transactions? II. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and without prejudice to the claim of the assessee that the entire profits were entitled to deduction u/s 80IB(10), the ITAT was justified in refusing the assessee's alternative claim of prorata/ proportionate deduction? 3. In this case the Assessing Officer (AO) vi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ants submits that the amendment by which clause (f) came to be introduced in Section 80IB (10) in its present form entered into effect only on 19.08.2009. She, therefore, submitted that the said provisions cannot apply retrospectively to housing projects which were approved much before 19.08.2009. She points out that the housing project "Kamat Riviera" was approved sometime on 26.03.2007. She relies on The Principal CIT v. Bramha Associates - (2019) 414 ITR 47 (BOM) in support of her contention. 7. Ms. Sathe submits that in any case, the ITAT was not at all justified in upsetting the pro-rata deduction granted by the Commissioner (Appeals) in his order dated 28.08.2015. She submits, without prejudice, that even the Commissioner (Appeals)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not contemplate grant of any pro-rata deductions. She also submits that the provisions of Section 80IB(10)(f) of the said Act being procedural can be given retroactive effect and she relies upon the explanatory note of the Finance (2) Act, 2009 by which such provision was introduced in the said Act. She relies on the decisions of this Court in CIT v. Vandana Properties - (2013) 353 ITR 36 (BOM), Bramha Associates (supra), and Britannia Industries Ltd. v. CIT - (2005) 148 TaxMan.Com 468 SC in support of her contentions. 10. The rival contentions now fall for our determination. 11. There is no dispute that the provisions of Section 80IB(10) (f) entered into force on 19.08.2009. Therefore, the allotment of Flat Nos.401 and 402 to Mr. Su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ered and distinguished the rulings relied upon by Ms. Linhares in this appeal, since, the very same rulings were relied upon in the connected appeals. 14. Therefore, by adopting our reasoning in our Judgment and Order dated 26.11.2020 disposing of the aforesaid connected appeals, we answer the second substantial question of law in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 15. Similarly, we also partly answer the first substantial question of law in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. This means that the Revenue will be entitled to withhold deductions on a pro-rata basis, in respect of Flat No.103 allotted to Mr. Vivek Panvelcar on 10.10.2009 but not withhold deductions in respect of the entire housing project ....