TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (2) TMI 925
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t Survey No.707 , Munjeri Gultekdi. The appellant pleads that the Kumar Puram Project is an independent project which satisfies the conditions and the profits of which are eligible for deduction u/s 80IB(10). 2. The computation of the profit eligible for deduction u/s 80IB(10) for Kumar Puram project amounting to Rs. 17,60,408 as per the certificate of the auditors in Form 10CCB, filed alongwith the return of income was not correct and that the following expenses ought to be prorated in the ratio of 24.4% (representing sales of Kumar Puram project to the Total Turnover for the year) and reduced from the said profits to arrive at the figure of profit eligible for 80IB(10) deduction. i) Bank guarantee & loan processing charges Rs. 62500. ii) Advertisement expenses Rs. 576280. iii) Legal and professional charges Rs. 985500. iv) Interest expenses Rs. 9666089. The appellant pleads that the amount certified by the auditors is the correct profit eligible for deduction u/s 80IB(10). 3. Out of Interest Expenses of Rs.96,66,089, amount of Rs.2838432 was allocable to Kumar Puram Project for the purpose of computing profit eligible for deduction u/s 80IB(10). The appell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Assessing Officer submitted a letter No.PN/ACIT/Cir.6/2005-06 dt.9.11.2005 on this subject and the operative portion of this letter is reproduced as under: "The case of assessee was finalized in scrutiny for A.Y. 2001-02 and 2002-03 and is in appeal before the CIT(A). The case of A.Y. 2003- 04 is also in scrutiny. During the course of assessment proceedings, the following facts have come to our notice which are relevant for the proceeding before the CIT(A). 1. The foremost condition is that the undertaking has commenced or commences development and construction of the housing project on or after 1.10.1998. In this regard, the enquiries were done from PMC and it is found that the commencement of the housing project in the name of Kumar Puram was started much before 1998. The necessary documentary evidence in this regard is reproduced below. (a) The commencement certificate was issued on 24.4.1998, which is enclosed for perusal. Ltr. dt. 24.4.98 Commencement certificate issued by Asst.Engr. Constrn PMC Pune. This commencement certificate is issued in the name of V.R.Supekar and Vimal Kumar Jain and others in respect of final plot no.411 TP III Gultekdi. In this....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on and original papers during the course of assessment proceedings for A.Y. 2002-03. The original project had already started before the due date i.e. 1.10.1998 which is one of the conditions for benefit of 80IB(10) that the construction commence after this date. These papers show that such condition has not been fulfilled and hence claim for benefit u/s. 80IB is wrong. The documents mentioned above have also been verified and explained by the building Inspector of PMC. This is to bring to your kind notice as appeal is pending for A.Y.2001-02 and 2002-03. 2. It may be pointed out that in para 3 & 4 of the remand report we had raised two issues regarding capitalization of interest on immovable properties and Kumar city project. We had worked out an amount of Rs.17,18,724/- and Rs.5,67,724/-respectively which was to be capitalized. However, during the course of proceedings before the Hon'ble CIT(A) the assessee has worked out an amount of Rs.29,64,928/~ in respect of other properties (Rs.45,75,517/- on daily product basis) and has not allocated any interest on Kumar City Club. It is requested that while disposing of the appeal this issue may also be considered. On the basis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nitial plan that was furnished to the PMC and does not contravene the provisions of section 80IB(10). The plans furnished by the assessee to the AO during asst. proceedings is the revised plan dated 16.2.00 as per which construction of the buildings has actually taken place. This also does not contravene the provisions of section 80IB. 1c) The AO's contention that construction upto ground floor level was completed upto Setp.98 based on letter by M/s.Pundalik £ Pundalik Architects is not correct as they were not architects for Kumar Puram Project but for Business Court. We are enclosing copy of confirmation from M/s.Pundalik & Pundalik. It is also evident from the documents on record furnished in course of assessment proceedings that M/s Butala and Nivsarkar were the Architects for the Kumar Puram project which is eligible for deduction u/s 80IB. d) As explained earlier the PMC's commencement certificate 3928 dt.24.4.93 is the initial plan submitted to the PMC. The project has been executed as per revised plans dt.20.10.00 which have been approved by PMC. As explained hereinabove, there is no contravention of the conditions of section 80IB(10). The AO's al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oduced as under: "During the course of appellate proceedings, a document was submitted which was obtained from Municipal Corporation, which shows that the construction was completed upto ground floor by September 1998. On the basis of the commencement certificate, DP plan, statement of the employee of the PMC it was confirmed that this document pertained to Kumar Puram Project, which is located on 411 S.No.707. 2. However, the Authorised representative of the assessee company in letter dt.6.12.2005, has pleaded that the letter which shows the constructions of the project pertains to Business Court and not to Kumar Puram in respect of which deduction u/s. 80-IB has been claimed. It was claimed that the letter is written by Pundalik and Pundalik Architects, who were architects of Business Court and not of Kumar Puram. By this the assessee wants to take plea that the construction in Business Court had started before October 1998 and not in Kumar Puram. 3. The claim of the assessee is however, not supported by the returns of income filed by the assessee for (he A.Y.1999-2000 and 2000-01 (enclosed). The assessment records don't show any work in progress in respect of B....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r consideration is Business Court and not Kumar Puram. The AO in his report has also argued that there are no expenses debited in the assessee's accounts w.r.t. Business Court till 31.3.2000 thereby indicating that it was Kumar Puram Project which was the subject of consideration in the above documents and that it has commenced before 1.10.98. Business Court was a project of Shri Vinayak Supnekar the land owner who spent for the same. The assesses spent on business Court development and construction after demolishing the earlier incomplete structure. Expenditure on Business Court was incurred in Y.E.31.3.2001 as evident from the assessee's accounts. The Kumar Puram project was on land behind Business Court which did not have any access as the adjacent lands were occupied by the land owner Shri Supnekar and by M/s D.S. Kulkarni Developers for their Chandradeep Project. The access to the Kumar Puram Project was made available by a new D.P. Road sanctioned by the PMC which cut through Chandradeep Project land. The s incurred expenditure in year ending 31.3.99 on development of the PMC road. Development and construction work of Kumar Puram project took place as per rev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... counter submissions, it would be seen that this office is called upon to decipher and decide two basic issues germane to allowability of deduction u/s 80IB in the present case. The first issue relates to the determination of date on which the development and construction in respect of Kumar Puram project started. The second issue relates to correctness or otherwise of allocation of expenditure because it is submitted by the learned Assessing Officer that these expenses have not been properly allocated by the appellant to the priority projects and thereby claim of deduction u/s 80IB has been inflated. 4.1 The submission of the appellant that the project was started on or after 1st Oct.98 and, therefore, deduction u/s 80IB has been correctly claimed is as under:- As regards the letter of M/s Pundalik and Pundalik, it is submission of the appellant that this letter is in respect of Business Court. It is further submitted that the plan on which the learned Assessing Officer relied was initial plan and not the plan which was acted upon. The development and construction of project on Kumar Puram started only on 18.4.99 which is evident from the statutory notice of commencement of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3.7.98 it is clear that plot no.411 has been sub divided into 6 plots and this development plan contains plot area along with area Key plan for building in respect of plot no.1, 2, 3, 4 5 and 6 of plot no.411. This development plan is signed by Butala and Nivsarkar and approved by Pune Municipal Corporation vide their letter dated 13.7 1998. iii) Dr. Navaljit Kapoor also placed reliance on commencement certificate dated 24.4.98 which is addressed to Vimal Kumar Jain & Another and is in respect of plot no.411. From this certificate, it is submitted by the learned Addl.CIT Rg.6, it is clear that commencement certificate also contained portion of land in respect of which plan was approved vide1 DPO no.2048/HI/748 dt.13.7.93. iv) The learned Addl.CIT has also produced true copy of building plan in respect of plot no,4 later on named as plot no.6 on which Kumar Puram is located. This plan is dated 24,4.98 and commencement certificate which is numbered 3928 which is the same number given to certificate in respect of sub plot contained in plot no.411. It is submitted by Dr. Kapoor that from true copy of building plan in respect of plot no.4, which is now plot no.6 on which Kumar ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in respect of this project. It is submission of the Addl.CIT that commencement certificate no.5623 dt.20.1.2002 mentions final plot no.411 and plot no.6 and commencement certificate dt. 13.7,98 also refers to final plot no.6 on which Kumar Puram is located. In view of this, it is submission of the Addl.CIT that commencement certificates on which the learned AR relies for its conclusion that construction started subsequent to commencement certificate is bereft of merit because commencement certificates are issued number of times depending on change in building plan. It is submitted by Dr. Kapoor that building under construction at Mukund Nagar, value of which is shown at Rs.23 lakhs for accounting year 97-98, does not prove that this construction does not pertain to construction on plot no.4 which is later known as plot no.6 on which project Kumar Puram is located. It is further submitted that balance sheet of V.S, Supnekar shows advance against sale of land at Rs.1.10 crores. It is further submitted that the appellant had purchased development rights from Supnekar in 1994. In view of this, whatever development has taken place in respect of subject property, it has to be on be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... intendment actuating enactment of section 80IB(10) is promotion of new projects and, therefore, I am of the considered view that the benefit of 80IB(10), as it then stood, was not available in case of project which is dismantled midway and new project is brought up on the same project. As regards the issue raised in 5(ii) hereinbefore, after taking into account the provisions of law, I am of the considered view that project located on revenue survey number in respect of which DP plan has been sanctioned and commencement certificate has been issued constitutes one project and this project is not capable of being broken into several projects in respect of some of which claim u/s 80IB is made and in respect of some of which no such claim is made because such project/projects did not fulfill the conditions contained u/s 80IB(10). It may also be mentioned that since entire project on Survey No.707 is one project and Business Court which is a commercial building stands on this survey number, the limit of 5% is exceeded and, therefore, even otherwise the appellant shall not be entitled for deduction u/s 80IB. 7. I have carefully considered the submissions of the appellant, the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t no.1,2,4 and final plot no.411/2. 5. Choice plan should be produced before asking any development on site. It would be seen that what was plot no.4 in earlier DP plan has become plot no.6 and on this very plot the project which was later named as Kumar Puram is located. At this stage suffice it to conclude that the projects in respect of all the six plots constituted single project and, therefore, it is held that since it is admitted fact that construction in respect of this plot had already been started by Supnekar and the cost of project in respect of such construction is admittedly Rs.23 lakhs as on 31.3.98 as contained in balance sheet of Shri Supnekar, the construction in respect of projects at plot no.411 had started in F.Y.97-98. Since it is admitted position that the structure standing on plot no.411 was dismantled, it is held that in respect of projects on plot no.411, no deduction u/s 80IB is available. It is also held that since in respect of this survey number DP plan has been sanctioned and commencement certificate has been issued this project could not be broken into several projects some of which, as per claim of appellant, are entitled for deduction u/s 8....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s it then stood shows that for deduction u/s 80IB(10) there are three conditions to be fulfilled. The first condition is that such undertaking has commenced or commences development and construction of the lousing project on or after the first day of October 98. The words used by legislative are development and construction and not merely construction. This clearly shows the legislative intendment that even if the development of a project has started before 1.10.98, though no actual construction has started before that date, such project would be outside the ambit of deduction u/s 80IB(10) as contemplated by the legislative intendment contained u/s 80IB(10). There may be cases where development of the project starts before construction starts. In case of appellant in respect of area of land which is subject of commencement certificate issued on 24.4.98 which refers to earlier development of 1995, it is held that development of project has started with the sanction and issue of development plan of 1995 and, therefore, the appellant is also not entitled to deduction u/s 80IB(10) because development in respect of such project commenced much before. In view of the foregoing discussi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... eligible to claim the deduction in respect of the project Kumar Puram. The various objections of the CIT(A) and the contentions of the assessee are summarized as under: Sr. No. Objections of the learned CIT(A) in respect of claim of deduction u/s.80IB(10) Stand of the assessee 1 Plot No. 411 is one single plot and the various projects constructed on the sub-plots constitute one project, [refer para 7(i), page 40-41 of his order] a. The assessee submits that the subplots 1 to 6 of final plot no. 411 are 6 different plots. In fact, plots marked yellow - are sold by Shri Supnekar to DSK Developers. b. The layout is common for all the sub-plots. But it does not mean that all the plots constitute one project. c. The assessee submits that the six sub-plots are independent plots and the projects constructed thereon constitute separate projects. d. For this proposition, the assessee places reliance on the following decisionsi. i Vandana Properties [Bombay High Court] (Reference page 6 to 21, relevant para 20 to 29) ii. Aditya Developers [Pune Tribunal] (Reference page 38 to 61, relevant para 6 to 8) iii. Rahul Construction [Pune Tribunal] (Reference page 22 to 37, rele....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the CIT(A), such petty expenditure would not have been incurred by the assessee. As against this, the assessee has incurred expenditure about Rs. 90 lacs in F.Y. 1999-2000 (page 126) which clearly indicates that the assessee had started the development of the housing project after April 1999. g. The assessee also clarified that the booking of the flats was started in F.Y. 1999- 2000. h. For this purpose, the assessee places reliance of ITAT, Pune decision in the case of Nirmiti Construction [95 TTJ 1117]. 4 The contention of the assessee that the expenditure of Rs. 23 lacs was incurred on the project Business Court is factually incorrect. The learned CIT(A) has further stated that as per books of accounts, no WIP was shown in respect of project Business Court upto 31.03.2000 and therefore, the contention that Rs.23 lacs was incurred on Business Court is not correct. a. The assessee submits that the project Business Court was started by Shri Supnekar. In fact, in the agreement for purchase of the land, it is clearly mentioned that the building is partly constructed. b. The amount of Rs.23 lacs incurred on construction is shown by Shri Supnekar in his balance sheet. Hence....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Nagar, Pune, was single plot and various projects constructed on the sub-plots constituted one project. The building 'Business Court' constructed on sub-plot No.5 is a commercial building and hence, assessee had constructed commercial area in excess of 2000 sq.ft. or 5% of the built up area whichever is less. The assessee has incurred exp on iron and steel, security charges, labour charges and labour contractor charges as indicated above. Thus, started constructed of the project before 01.10.1998, accordingly assessee is not eligible for claim of deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the Act in respect of project of plot No.411 at Mukund Nagar, Pune. 8. After going through the above submissions ad material on record, we find that issue before us is with regard to deduction u/s.80IB(10) in respect of the profits derived from its Kumar Puram Project situated on portion of plot No.411 at Mukund Nagar, Pune. The Assessing Officer in the assessment order has allowed deduction u/s.80IB(10) in respect of said Kumar Puram Project. However, later on in appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) disallowed the claim and enhanced the income of the assessee on various accounts including for disallowance of claim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The fact that the local authority, namely the Municipal Corporation approved the building plan for 'E' building on the condition that all the objections raised in the Intimation of Disapproval dated 12th May 1993 relating to the earlier housing project on the same plot of land shall be applicable and should be complied with, cannot be a ground to hold that 'E' building is extension of the earlier housing project because the earlier housing project was completed prior to 1st October 1998 and the housing project for construction of 'E' building was approved for the first time on 11th October 2002. Nowhere in the Intimation for Disapproval granted for construction of 'E' building on 11th October 2002, it is stated that building 'E' constitutes extension of the earlier housing project which is already completed. The fact that the objections raised while approving the earlier housing project on the same plot of land were made applicable to the housing project in question, it cannot be inferred that the housing project in question constitutes extension of the earlier housing project. Therefore, in the facts of the present case, where, neither the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....herefore, the benefit of Section 80IB(10) could not be granted in respect of the housing project consisting 'E' building. 24. As rightly contended by the counsel for the assessee and the intervenors, Section 80IB(10)(b) specifies the size of the plot of land but not the size of the housing project. The size of the plot of land, as per Section 80IB(10) must have minimum area of one acre. The Section does not lay down that the plot having minimum area of one acre must be a vacant plot. 25. The question, therefore, to be considered is, whether the Revenue is justified in reading the expression 'plot of land' in Section 80IB(10)(b) as Vacant plot of land' ? 26. The object of Section 80IB(10) in granting deduction equal to one hundred per cent of the profits of an undertaking arising from developing and constructing a housing project is with a view to boost the stock of houses for lower and middle income groups subject to fulfilling the specified conditions. The fact that the maximum size of the residential unit in a housing project situated within the city of Mumbai and Delhi is restricted to 1000 square feet clearly shows that the intention of the legislat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Section 80IB and also to identify receipts and repayments of long term finances under the provisions of Section 10(23G), separately financing arrangements and also, if it separately fulfills all other statutory conditions listed in Sections 10(23G) and 80(B(10). With regard to your query regarding the definition of Housing Project, it is clarified that any project which has been approved by a local authority as a housing project should be considered adequate for the purpose of Section 10(23G) and 80IB (10)" 29. From the aforesaid letter of CBDT, it is clear that for the purposes of Section 80IB(10) it is not the mandate of the Section that the housing project must be on a vacant plot of land having minimum area of one acre and that where a new housing project is constructed on a plot of land having minimum area of one acre but with existing housing projects would qualify for Section 80IB(10) deduction. Even otherwise, the argument of the Revenue does not stand to reason because, in the city of Mumbai where there is acute space crunch, it is difficult to find a vacant plot having minimum area of one acre and even if few such plots are existing it cannot be said that Sectio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the decisions relied upon by the parties. The facts in details submitted by the assessee before the A.O vide letter dated 16.10.2006 have also been gone through. For a ready reference, para nos. 1 to 8 of the letter dated 16.10.2006 submitted by the assessee before the A.O are being reproduced hereunder : "1. M/s Aditya Developers purchased a plot of land bearing Survey No. 1/A(Part) of Kondhwa Khurd, Pune from Ranade and their relatives. Thereafter M/s. Aditya Developers got the clearance from Urban and Land Ceiling Department vide order dated 17-8-1988. Then we got layout plans sanctioned from the PMC vide order dated 25-5-1990. As per the terms of the ULC we have to show 25 s1.mtr corehouse plots and building in layout plan and get it sanctioned from PMC. If we don't implement their order ad show the vacant land in the plan, the ULC department might have initiated acquisition procedure. The total land area was 28905 sq.mtr. It was not possible for us to start construction and development of entire land. So we started development and construction of front area of land. In the year 1994, we have requested govt. of Maharashtra to accept the consideration in lieu of certain condi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3-10-2006 On the above mentioned subject and under the letter referred above, it is being informed that permission for construction of 'K' building at S.No. 1(Part) Kondhwa Khurd, Pune was given vide No. 4975 dt. 9-3-01 and certificate of plinth checking was given under No. BCO/03/74 DT. 27-9-2001. Also permission for building MNIOP was given vide letter No. 4981 dt. 29-3-2001 As per the available record there is no mention of any building construction of whatsoever nature was found on the land of above buildings before sanctioning permission for above construction. Sd/- Building Inspector Sd Asst. Engineer Pune Municipal Corporation 5. Certificates of our Architect dated 14-10-2006 confirming this fact is also enclosed for your consideration. 6. The TDR was purchased from the open market and utilized as well as debited to Profit & Loss account in books of account was not more than 40% of 8966 sq.mtr. We have utilized TDR by purchasing it from outside land owners from the open market and then prevailing market price. 7. We have brought all these facts to notice of assessing officer during the scrutiny of our accounts for A.Y. 2001-2002. It is clearly evide....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was made on 25th November 1998 and the revenue authorities converted the said agricultural land into Non-agricultural land on 13th June 1999. It was also contended by the assessee that the building plan was submitted to the municipal corporation and the said corporation sanctioned the building plan on 23rd July 1999. In other words, the municipal corporation gave the permission of construction on 23rd July 1999. After discussing the cases of the parties, the Tribunal has accepted the above contentions of the assessee that the housing project has been approved by the local authority on 23rd July 1999 i.e. after 1st October1998, hence the assessee was eligible for the claimed deduction u/s. 80 IB (10) of the Act since it was fulfilling all other requirements of the provisions. 6.1. Likewise, in the case of Vandana Properties Vs. ACIT (Supra), the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal has decided the issue in favour of the assessee . In that case, the assessee had plan for 4 independent buildings 'A','B', 'C' & 'D' but, so far as 'E' is concerned only planned when the status of 'the surplus land was converted as "within ceiling limit" and the assessee could get additional FSI for launching....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a plan without submission of the detailed building plans by the architect and on the requisite details required to be submitted for approval of the building plans by the local authorities. In other words, the Tribunal accepted the contention of the assessee that the development plan is only conceptual and the detailed construction plans are not submitted nor approved without which no construction can even commence, and this is done only subsequently where the assessee submits the construction plans which are approved by the authority. This is done for each project. The Pune Bench in the cases of Apoorva Properties and Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, ITA No. 113/PN/2007, A.Y. 2003-04, order dated 21st August 2009 and Mumbai Bench in the case of Mudhit Madanlal Gupta Vs/ ACIT (Supra), 51 DTR (Mum ) Trib 217 have expressed the similar view. 7. There is no reason to dispute on facts in the present case that initially the proposed buildings ( except wings I, M, N, O, P and K in the present form) lay out plan was approved by the PMC on 25.5.1990 ( Page 94 of the paper book). The proposed building lay out plan was revised on 31.3.2001 (Page No. 5 of the paper book). The total area of land w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. Viswas Promotrs (P) Ltd. (Supra) relied upon by the Ld. D.R. is concerned, we find that the facts therein are distinguishable as in that case, assessee had completed 4 housing projects, out of those 4 projects, in 2 projects assessee had constructed flats exceeding 1500 sq.ft. and also flats of less than 1500 sq.ft. in area, the assessee claimed deduction u/s. 80 IB (10) in respect of flats having area less than 1500 sq.ft., A.O. denied said deduction on the ground that housing project comprised of residential units exceeding 1500 sq. ft., thus all conditions stipulated in statute were not satisfied. The Tribunal has justified the action of the A.O. This decision is thus not relevant in the facts of the present case wherein the project KKT is fulfilling all the requirements of Sec. 80 IB(10) of the Act and approval to the building plans of the project were given separately by the Municipal Corporation from the earlier project KKN. The grounds are thus rejected. 11. We also find that ITAT, Pune Bench, in the case of M/s.Rahul Construction Co. Vs. ITO in ITA.No.1250/PN/2009, has held as under: "9. To decide the above issu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....limit for verification of eligibility of assessee for the claimed deduction. In view of the above explanation, we find substance in the contention of the ld. A.R. that approval of the housing project and approval of building plan are two different concepts. The Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT Vs. Brigade Enterprises (P) Ltd. (Supra) has held that plan for development is only a work order and not final plan sanctioned by the local authority. For any project, there could not have been a plan without submission of the detailed building plans, by the architect and what requisite details required to be submitted for approval of the building plans by the local authority. In the case of Saroj Sales Organization Vs. ITO (Supra), before Mumbai Bench, almost similar facts as before us were there. The commencement certificate in respect of six wings in Block 'N' was separately received by the assessee and all the flats in Block were less than 1000 sq.ft. It was held by the Tribunal that it is not upon to the revenue to include block 'BC' as part of block 'N' just to deny relief to the assessee u/s. 80 IB(10). The Tribunal observed that Block "BC" was meant for higher strat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ikewise, these material facts that B Group buildings in "Rahul Nisarg Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.," have been constructed on land area of 138203 sq.ft., has not been denied by the authorities below. They have also not denied these material facts that the first building plan was sanctioned on 29.4.2003 vide Commencement Certificate No. 4269 issued by the PMC (Page No. 16 of the Paper Book). The other material facts like actual construction was executed as per the revised plan sanction on 20th March 2004 vide CC No. 2225 (page No. 17), the project consists of 396 flats and construction of these flats have been completed on 14.7.2006 as per the Completion Certificate issued by the PMC (Page Nos. 13 to 18 of paper book) are not in dispute. The authorities below have also not denied that built up area of each of these flats does not exceed 1500 sq.ft. It is also not in dispute that both the projects are entirely a residential project and there is no commercial area therein. Under the above circumstances, we are of the view that the assessee is very much entitled to the claimed deduction u/s. 80 IB (10) of the Act on the buildings A1 to A5 in "Atul Nagar" and buildings B1 to B6 in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e flats started in F.Y. 1999-2000. The fact has been intimated by the assessee to the Pune Municipal Corporation on 05.05.1999 wherein it was submitted that as per Rule 7.2 of DC Rules of PMC, assessee has to intimate the Corporation about the starting of the project. Hence, the estimation of starting of the development of the project was given by the assessee in April, 1999 which shows that construction has not commenced before 01.10.1999. Even though plan was approved prior to 01.10.1999, the development and construction of housing project started after 01.10.1999 and construction in fact has commenced only after April, 1999. It has been the consistent stand of the assessee that building 'Business Court' started by Shri Supnekar even in the agreement for purchase of land, it was mentioned that building is partly constructed. The amount of Rs.23,00,000/- incurred on construction was shown by Shri Supnekar in his Balance Sheet. Thus, the said expenditure was incurred by Shri Supnekar. Therefore, the assessee did not record the same in its books of account. The assessee has demolished the construction and new construction was started subsequently as indicated above. Therefore, no WI....