9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 748X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal for assessment year 2007-08 against order dated 11.07.2011 of ld CIT(A), vide which he has confirmed the action of Assessing Officer to disallow deduction of ₹ 87,54,412/- claimed u/s 80-IB(10) of Income Tax Act in respect of projects comprising of Balaji Towers, Silicon Towers, Kaveri, Panchvati Vrindavan, Tulsi, Kamothe Phase I II. 2. The relevant facts are that the assessee is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tower 27.09.2002 1,36,89,723/- 6. Kaveri 30.10.2001 6,48,825/- 7. Kamothe, Phase I 07.09.2002 07.09.2002 8. Kamothe, Phase II 07.09.2002 07.09.2002 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... area of the flats in these projects exceed 1000 sq.ft. c. The commercial areas in these projects also exceed the ceiling limit of 5% of the aggregate built up area or 2000 sq.ft., whichever is less. d. The total area of project was less than 1 hectare. Being aggrieved, assessee filed appeal before First Appellate Authority. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) following his earlier orders for the Asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claim of the assessee for deduction u/s 80- IB(10) of the Act may be allowed. Ld. DR in his submissions did not dispute the submissions of Ld. AR and fairly conceded that the facts and the issue are identical in the Assessment Year under consideration as were considered by the Tribunal in the Assessment Years 2004-05 to 2006-07 vide orders dated 30.03.2011 and 04.05.2-12 (supra). 6. Considering ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
