9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 53X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowed to divide the land. Though this would be a relevant consideration it is not unknown that such conditions imposed by the Revenue authorities come in printed proforma and are in cyclostyled manner. Whether that by itself established that both the housing projects were developed on a land forming composite block building would be a matter of appreciation of materials on record which, in the present case, would also include the evidence at the command of the Assessing Officer suggesting that physically societies were situated far apart from each other. The Commissioner and the Tribunal did not advert to this evidence at all and thus, committed a serious error. Under the circumstances, let the matter be re-examined by the Appellate Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Gunjan Residency and Geet Gunjan Vatika. The case of the assessee was that both the projects were composite and amounted to development of single housing project. Together this project fulfilled all conditions of deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Act. The Assessing Officer confronted the assessee with the fact that Geet Gunjan Vatika and Geet Gunjan Residency were two separate societies and the same should not be considered as a common housing project. The assessee contended that the permission for development of the land was common. The housing development permission was also granted common and the building completion permission was also commonly issued. The entire project was completed on single block of land and only for the sake o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Secondly, he agreed that the assessee was not allowed to bifurcate the plot. He was of the opinion that both the projects were situated on a land which formed a composite block. Inter alia on such grounds, he overruled the Assessing Officer's objection to treat the two projects as one. 6. This logic in slightly different form was adopted by the Tribunal while rejecting the Revenue's appeal by the judgement dated 14.09.2010. This has given rise to Tax Appeal No. 546 of 2011. 7. When an identical issue came up before the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2007-08, he followed his earlier decision recording that the Revenue had carried the issue before the High Court against the judgement of the Tribunal. Once again, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
