2016 (8) TMI 1295 - HC - Income Tax

Deduction u/s. 80IB(10) - Date of approval of the building plan - Held that - As held in the case of Aditya Developers 2013 (3) TMI 512 - ITAT Pune from the very reading of the Explanation (i) makes it clear that the date on which building plan of such housing project is approved shall be deemed the date of approval of the housing project - the assessee is very much eligible for the claimed deduction u/s. 80 IB (10) on the project, thus in our view, the Ld CIT(A) has rightly allowed the claimed deduction. The same is upheld. - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in not appreciating the project as part of a larger approved project.
2. Whether the Tribunal erred in allowing pro rata claim of deduction despite violation of clause.
3. Whether the Tribunal erred in not appreciating the violation of commercial area provisions.

Analysis:
1. The first issue revolves around the Tribunal's alleged failure to recognize the project as part of a larger approved project, leading to a violation of section 80IB(10) conditions. The appellant argued that the project was part of a larger approved project, Kumar City, and had not been completed by the specified date. However, the Tribunal's decision was influenced by a previous case involving similar factual and legal issues, where the Tribunal had already taken a certain view. As the factual findings and legal provisions were identical to the present case, the Court held that a different view could not be taken, and the appeal was dismissed on this ground.

2. The second issue concerns the Tribunal's decision to allow a pro rata claim of deduction under section 80IB(10) despite a violation of a specific clause. The appellant contended that the deduction should apply to the entire project, citing a previous case as precedent. However, the Court noted that the Tribunal had already considered and concurred with its factual findings in a similar case, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeals. Consequently, the Court held that when factual positions and legal provisions are identical to a previous case, the same view must be maintained, and the appeal was dismissed on this issue as well.

3. The final issue involves the Tribunal's alleged failure to appreciate the violation of commercial area provisions in the larger project. The Court referenced a previous case where the issue of approval of building plans versus layout plans was discussed, leading to a specific decision. Given the identical factual findings and legal provisions in the present case, the Court held that the same view must be applied. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal on this issue, emphasizing the binding nature of factual findings on the Revenue in subsequent cases involving similar circumstances.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the appeal on all three issues, highlighting the importance of consistency in applying legal provisions and factual findings across similar cases to maintain coherence and fairness in judgments.