9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 947X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see is the proprietor of M/s. Ashish Developers carrying on the business of development of properties. An assessment order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') was passed on 29th December, 2008 which records that the assessee was to develop a project of 14 buildings and had acquired development rights from M/s.Jayshree Builders in respect of land admeasuring 5318.46 sq. mtrs. As on 29th September, a plan was sanctioned by the Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation (KDMC) for the project comprising 14 buildings. The Respondent made a claim under section 80IB(10) for deduction which came be disallowed and an addition came to be made to the extent of Rs. 76,94,360/-. According to the Assessing Officer, the projec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded in the project did not exceed 2000 sq. ft. The Assessing Officer had proceeded on a misunderstanding of facts. He found that the land was originally belonging to Krishna Balu Manerkar and the development rights therein was originally purchased by M/s. Jayashree Developers and the plan for the entire land was sanctioned by KDMC on 25th January, 2001 and 5th April, 2003. 5. M/s. Jayshree Developers were however, not able to develop the entire land and it disposed off development rights in respect of the construction of six buildings to the assessee and some others to M/s. Vidhi Developers. Three independent developers have developed three different projects on the land. The assessee did so in the name and style of Shiv Amrut Dham. Vidhi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been fulfilled? (II) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT erred in coming to a conclusion that the exclusion of DP Road does not reduce the size of the plot, while on the contrary accepting the fact that the plot in question was originally a larger plot which was trifurcated with passing of two DP roads and thus, treating one of the 3 plots i.e. the plot in question being an independent plot with net area of 3461.68 sq.mtrs.? 7. Mr. Tejveer Singh further submitted that the Tribunal was wrong in having dismissed the revenue's appeal. On the other hand, Mr.Hadade appearing for the assessee submitted that the facts in the case of Vidhi Builders were not applicable in the present case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
