9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 856X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the revenue challenge the order dated 26 June 2012 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). By the impugned order, the Tribunal disposed of the appeals pertaining to Assessment Years 2006-07 and 2007-08 on a common issue, namely, entitlement of the assessee for the claim of deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 2 Mr.Singh, learned counsel appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2004, was different from the housing project approved on 23 June 2003 by the local authority. The sanction dated 31 July 2004, the impugned order finds, was in relation to area 104-R reflected by Survey No.61/2+3+4+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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 the revenue does not give rise to any substantial question of law. 9. Accord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
