TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 533
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (i) M.P.No.257/Mds/2009 in I.TA.No.194/Mds/2008 dated 18.12.2009 (ii) M.P.No.259/Mds/2009 in I.TA.No.2259/Mds/2007 dated 08.01.2010 and (iii) I.TA.No.194/Mds/2008 dated 10.07.2009 respectively. 2. On 20.10.2010, all these Tax Case appeals were admitted by this Court by raising the following substantial questions of law: T.C.A. No. 797 of 2010 "(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the appellant was not entitled to deduction under Section 80 IB of the Income Tax Act in respect of the housing project undertaken and constructed by it? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g Officer processed the return of income on 20.01.2004 and issued a notice under Section 143 (1) of the Income Tax Act (in short, the Act) dated 17.11.2005, calling upon the appellant to submit certain particulars. The representative of the appellant also appeared before the respondent on 28.11.2005 and submitted documentary evidence. Thereafter, the respondent scrutinised the return of income submitted by the appellant and noticed that the appellant originally claimed deduction of Rs. 28,32,048/- under Section 801B(10) of the Act in respect of the projects undertaken by them titled "Marvel Apoorva" and "Wood Creek County". However, in the revised return of income filed on 03.02.2006, they have restricted their claim of deduction to the pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mmercial blocks were constructed, has been incorrectly recorded. Further, it was stated that the project of the appellant had the approval of the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority. Having regard to the above submission, the rectification Petition was ordered by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on 02.10.2007 and the claim of the appellant for deduction under section 801B(10) was allowed. Therefore, the appellant withdrew I.T.A. No. 2259/MdS/2007 on 04.04.2008 filed before the Tribunal. As against the order dated 02.10.2007 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowing the rectification petition of the appellant, the Department has filed I.T.A. No.194/Mds/2008 before the Tribunal. 6. The Tribunal, after considering th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er dated 04.04.2008 and dismissed the Miscellaneous Petition on 08.01.2010. This order dated 08.01.2010 is the subject matter of Tax Case (Appeal) No. 870 of 2010 filed by the appellant. 9. When these appeals are taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the questions of law raised in these appeals were already decided in favour of the appellant by the Honourable Supreme Court in (CIT Vs. Sarkar Builders) reported in 375 ITR 392. In that it was held by the Honourable Supreme Court that when a housing project is approved, with or without commercial user to the extent permissible under the Rules/Regulations, then, deduction under Section 801B (10) would be allowed. In other words, if a project could be ....