9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 178X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratham-DR For the Assessee : Shri Rakesh Joshi-AR s ORDER Per Rajendra, AM Challenging the order dt. 06. 8. 2014 of CIT(A)-4,Mumbai, the Assessing Officer (AO) has filed the present appeal. Assessee company, engaged in the business of redevelopment of slum and such other properties, filed its return of income 29. 9. 2010, declaring total income at ₹ 69. 86 Lakhs. The assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act, was passed on 13. 3. 2013, determining the total income of the assessee at ₹ 4. 63 crores. 2. The effective Ground of appeal is about allowing deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act ₹ 3. 90 crores . 3. During the course of hearing before us the Authorized Representative (AR) state ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clause (a) of section 80IB(10) of the Act where approval in respect of the housing project had been obtained more than once, such project shall be deemed to have been approved on the date on which the building was approved by the local authority for the first time. The Tribunal had adjudicated the issue as under: 3. During the proceedings before us, at the outset, Shri Rakesh Joshi, Ld Counsel for the assessee brought our attention to the above mentioned grounds and mentioned that the only issue raised before the Tribunal relates to the allowability of deduction u/s 80IB (10) when the project in question is cleared after approval of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority. It is the claim of the assessee that the due dates for comple ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l has been given on 4. 6. 2004, therefore, it is clearly covered by the proviso below clause (b) of subsection 80IB(10), whereas, any other restriction for date of start and completion put by any notification or instruction etc cannot override the act of Parliament. Hence, considering any such notification and holding such project out of the applicability of the proviso below clause (b) of sub-section 80IB(10) by the AO is not correct. The assessee has correctly relied on the decision of the Hon ble ITAT in the case of Asha Kashiprasad Ringshia (supra), which is directly on the same issue and relevant portion as reproduced by the assessee in its submissions is again reproduced below. Thus, rigors of the conditions enumerated in claus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
