TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (3) TMI 1433
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for assessment year 2007- 08. The issue contested therein relates to the eligibility of the assessee for assessment year 2007-08. 3. The facts relating to the issue are stated in brief. The assessee claimed deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act in respect of a project developed by it as per the approval given by the Slum Redevelopment Authority(SRA) for the project. In connection with the development of the project and handing over of the same to the SRA, the assessee got Transferrable Development Right (TDR) rights. As per the scheme, the assessee shall recoup its cost of construction of the project by selling the TDR rights. In assessment year 2006-07, the assessing officer allowed the claim in the original assessment completed us 143(3) of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uld receive TDR. Accordingly the Ld CIT(A) held that the agreement has to be considered as a whole and hence the assessee cannot be considered to be a mere contractor. Accordingly, the Ld CIT(A) held that the assessee was developer only and accordingly held that the assessee would be entitled to deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order passed by Ld CIT(A), the revenue has filed this appeal before us. 5. Based on the order passed by the AO for AY 2007-08, the Ld CIT proposed to revise the assessment order passed in the hands of the assessee for assessment year 2006-07, since he felt that the assessing officer has allowed the claim for deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act without conducting proper examination. Accordingly he in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... land. Hence we are of the view that the Ld CIT(A) was justified in holding that, for all practical purposes, it should be taken as a new project and not Slum Redevelopment scheme. In AY 2006-07, the Ld CIT(A) has also taken support for this view from the decision rendered by co-ordinate bench of ITAT in the case of M/s Sonasha Enterprises (ITA No.4911 and 4912/Mum/2010 dated 31-10-2011), where in it was held as under:- ".... Further we note that the assessee never sought any relaxation in the conditions under clause (a) or (b) of section 80IB(10) by virtue of first proviso. Therefore, when the assessee has not claimed any benefit under the proviso, the question of scheme of SRA, as notified or not, does not arise. Accordingly, we do not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng that the assessee was a developer in this project. 10. With regard to the observation of the AO that the assessee "appears" to have not completed the project before 31.3.2008, we notice that the very use of the word "appears" by the AO shows that he was also not sure about his allegation. In any case, the Ld CIT(A) has taken note of the possession certificate given by the SRA, as per which all the buildings were handed over to it before 31.3.2008, meaning thereby, the assessee has completed the construction before that date. 11. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld CIT(A) passed for AY 2007-08 and accordingly uphold the same. 12. We shall take up the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2006-07 challeng....