2014 (2) TMI 1387

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(in short the 'Act'). 2. It is to be seen from the case file that the only grievance of the Revenue is that the CIT(A) ought to have affirmed the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer to the extent of Rs. 19,50,52,889/- by denying him claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. 3. The assessee, an 'individual' is a civil contractor and promoter. On 15.10.2010, he had filed his return disclosing income of Rs. 2,26,93,191/- after claiming deduction u/s 80IB(10) pertaining to a housing project namely 'Chettinadd Enclave', situated at Pallikaranai, Chennai. The assessee had claimed himself to be 'developer' of a plot measuring 14.75 acres alongwtih all basic amenities like roads, parks, street lights, children play area etc. We find from....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....der sec. 80IB(10) of the Act to the assessee to the extent of Rs. 19,50,52,889/- 2.2. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the balconies in the housing units are not open terrace area but inseparable from the built-up area and is very much part and parcel of the built-up area. 2.3. The learned CIT(A) ought to have taken note of the detailed photographs of the housing units which forms part of the assessment order for the instant asst. year, instead of following his earlier order in the assessee's own case for the asst. year 2009- 10. 2.4. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that only the buyer of the residential unit has exclusive access to the balcony. 2.5. The learned CIT(A) ought to have seen that, unlike the cases re....