TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (12) TMI 229
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ate filed its return of income on 28.09.2013 declaring total income at Rs. NIL. The appellant also claimed deduction of Rs. 42,52,86,128/- under Section 80IB(10) of the Act in respect of the project at Atlantis Park, Sughad. Necessary details in order to establish the claim of the assessee were directed to be produced by the Ld. AO. Factually completion certificate in respect of Atlantis Park Project was issued in respect of 876 units though the project is consisting of total 1140 units. The completion certificate issued by BU further indicates that the whole Project of 1140 units were not completed by 31.03.2012 i.e. within five years to the end of the Financial Year in which the project was to be approved rather reflects completion of 876 units only. Relevant to mention that the project were approved on 30.03.2007 and it was required to be completed by 31.03.2012. 4. The Ld. AO was of the opinion that since the project was not completed in its entirety till 31.03.2012, the condition stipulated under Section 80IB(10) of the Act has been violated. In that view of the matter the assessee was not found eligible for deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Act and consequently deduc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was received by the assesses on 14-02-2007 which was subsequently revised on various dates. As per the original plan passed by the Municipal authorities, there are three buildings, viz., A, B and C. The assessee has submitted the completion certificate only for Buildings B and C but did not furnish the completion certification for Building A on the ground that the same was not constructed. Since the plan was sanctioned for Buildings A, B and C and the assessee has completed only Buildings B and C and Building A was never constructed in appeal the Ld. CIT(A) following various decisions allowed the claim of prorata deduction in respect of Buildings B and C which were completed. No infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) granting pro-rata deduction to the assessee in respect of Buildings B and C which were completed. We find the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Kumar Company [2016 (2) TMI 231 - ITATPUNE] while deciding identical issue had allowed the claim of pro-rata deduction wherein held AO cannot reject the claim of deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the entire project for non-completion of the few buildings. We therefore set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the order reads as under: 'We agree to proposition put forward by Ld. Departmental Representative that plain reading of section 80IB(10) of the Act suggests about only completion of construction and no adjective should be used along with the word completion. This strict interpretation should be given in normal circumstances. However, # in case before us, assessee was prevented by reasonable cause to complete construction in time due to intervention of CID action on account of violation of provisions of Urban Land Ceiling Act applicable to land in question. Assessee was incapacitated to complete the same in time due to reasons beyond his control. Assessee should not suffer for same. The revision of plan is vested right of assessee which cannot be taken away by strict provisions of statute. The taxing statute granting incentives for promotion of growth and development should be construed liberally and that provision for promoting economic growth has to be interpreted liberally. At the same time, restriction thereon too/has to be construed strictly so as to advance the object of provision and not to frustrate the same. The provisions of taxing statute should be construe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of M/s. Varun Developers in ITA No. 1624/PN/2011 dated 22.03.2013 In view of detailed discussion made herein above and the contention of AO that BU permission was not received by Appellant within prescribed period for all the blocks for which approval was given are already discussed by various Courts and AO has not brought any other contrary decision on record nor stated as to how decision relied upon by Appellant in Assessment Proceedings are not applicable to its facts, following the ratio laid down by various Courts, it is held that Appellant has rightly claimed deduction under Section 80-IB(10) on project Atlantis Park in return of income. The AO is directed to delete the addition made in Assessment Order. In nutshell, Appellant is entitled for deduction under Section 80-IB(10) for Rs. 42,52,86,128/-. The ground No. 1 & 2 have overlapping as far as issues are concerned. The first issue raised is to allow the deduction u/s. 80IB(10) stands disposed off in favour of appellant. Hence, this issue raised in ground No. 1 & 2 is allowed." 9. We find that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court on the identical situation allowed the deduction claimed by the assessee under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 80-IB(10). The word 'approval' can be taken and considered as singular and also multiples when more than one projects are there. In this connection, specific reference is made to the Section 80-IB(10) and the Explanation there below. The Explanation reads as under:-- "(i) in a case where the approval in respect of the housing project is obtained more than once, such housing project shall be deemed to have been approved on the date on which the building plan of such housing project is first approved by the local authority. (ii) the date of completion of construction of the housing project shall be taken to be the date on which the completion certificate in respect of such housing project is issued by the local authority." Thus, from (I) above, it is clear that more than one approvals has also been envisaged by the Legislature in the Act and that is why it is mentioned 'in a case where the approval in respect of the housing project is obtained more than once...'. Thus, there is no bar in the Act for obtaining more than one approval. The basic fact is that the A.O. is to see whether the conditions laid down u/s. 80-IB(10) are cumulatively fu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mposite residential units. The appellant also relied on the decision in the case of Vandana Properties [27 DTR (Mum) 282 (2009)], wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble Tribunal that the approval for separate buildings can be granted and that will not effect the claim of the assessee u/s. 80-IB(10) of the Act. Moreover, the Hon'ble ITAT, Bangalore in the case of Brigade Enterprises (P) Ltd. (119 ITJ 269) has held that although separate approvals are obtained for different units, if particular unit satisfied the conditions of Section 80-IB(10) deduction is to be granted. Therefore, keeping in view all the facts of the case and the legal issue involved, it is held that the appellant fulfills all the conditions laid down u/s. 80-IB(10) of the Act and that the A.O's averment that on the basis of multiple approvals 80-IB deduction can be disallowed is held to be incorrect. Accordingly, the claim of deduction made by the appellant u/s. 80-IB is allowed and the addition made of Rs. 1,45,67,940/- is hereby ordered to be deleted. However, the A.O. is directed to see if the construction of any unit is completed after 31/03/2008 during the year the eligible profit on the sale sho....