9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 452X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e different blocks enjoy the common recreational facilities and amenities. In the circumstances, the Tribunal correctly agreed with the assessee. See CIT v VANDANA PROPERTIES [2012 (4) TMI 54 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - Decided in favour of assessee. - Tax Case (Appeal) Nos.795 and 796 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 2-11-2012 - MRS. CHITRA VENKATARAMAN AND MR. K.RAVICHANDRABAABU, JJ. For the Appellant : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me Kadambari, Avaram, Thamarai, Parijatham, Gurinji, Kasthuri, Manjari and Neelambari. The Assessing Officer pointed out that the allottees are conveyed undivided interest in the land as per Schedule B of the agreements. Item No. 1 of Schedule B is with regard to allotment of undivided share in respect of area of land earmarked in respect of each project. On the basis of constructed area sold, und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. Thus, the claim for deduction was rejected. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee went on appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who allowed the assessee's appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the Revenue went on appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, who agreeing with the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) rejected the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal pointed out tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allowed the assessee's appeal. We may point out here that the present assessee's stand is on a better footing than that of the decision of the Bombay High Court. The facts in the decision of the Bombay High Court related to the case of the assessee putting up extra blocks in the land, where there were already five buildings. As far as the order passed by us in T.C.Nos. 1014 of 2009, 857 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
