9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 856X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5+6, whereas the earlier sanction on 23 June 2003 was in respect of area 84-R of land area consisting of Survey No.61/2+3+5+6. This by itself would indicate that the sanction which has been obtained on 31 July 2004 is in respect of distinct and separate project, then the approval obtained on 23 June 2003 for the housing project. The mere use of the revised sanction by the local authority in the sanction given on 31 July 2004, would not by itself make it an amendment or a change to a earlier sanction when in fact it is a sanction for a materially different housing project. Reliance on Commissioner of Income Tax v/s Vandana Properties [2012 (4) TMI 54 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] in support of its conclusion that the project sanctioned on 21 July ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of profits relating to housing projects undertaken by it. The Assessing Officer denied the benefit under Section 80IB(10) of the Act on the ground that the project was not completed within the stipulated time. This was in view of the Explanation to Section 80IB(10)(a) of the Act. The building plans had first obtained an approval from the local authority on 23 June 2003 and thereafter a revised sanction was obtained on 31 July 2004. Thus, the project having obtained its first approval on 23 June 2003, the project was required to be completed on or before 31 March 2008. 4. In appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the finding of the Assessing Officer. On further appeal, the Tribunal by the impugned order allowed the respon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ousing project. 6. In fact, the impugned order relies upon the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v/s Vandana Properties, reported in 19 Taxman.com 316 (Bom) in support of its conclusion that the project sanctioned on 21 July 2004 is different from the project sanctioned on 23 June 2003. 7. We find that the finding recorded by the impugned order is a pure finding of fact. The impugned order spells out the basis on which the sanction received on 31 July 2004 is in respect of a different project then that obtained on 23 June 2003. The revenue has not been able to show that this finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal is, in any manner, perverse and/or arbitrary. 8. In view of the above, the question as proposed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
