9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 633X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and that the approval obtained on 19th January, 2005 was the approval obtained on a project different from that obtained on 2nd November, 2003 Held that:- We find that this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vandana Properties [2012 (4) TMI 54 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ] has specifically held that the Explanation to Section 80IB(10)(a) of the Act refers to approval granted to the same housing p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pect of Assessment Year 200708. 2. Mr. Bajpayee, learned Counsel for the Revenue only urges the following questions of law for our consideration : (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal erred in allowing the assessee's claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act of ₹ 1,46,24,573/? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pletion of the construction so as to obtain the benefit of Section 80IB(10) of the Act. The grievance of the Revenue is that the project was approved on 2nd November, 2003 which according to the Revenue would be the relevant date for the purpose of Explanation to Section 80IB(10)(a) of the Act, while according to the respondent assessee, the project was first approved on 19th January, 2005. 4. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent assessee, the previous owner had not carried out any development work in respect of the plan sanctioned in the year 2003. In the above view, the Tribunal records the fact that the approval obtained on 2nd November, 2003 was in respect of a different project and was not for the building plan which was only approved on 19th January, 2005 for the first time. 5. Mr. Bajpayee, learned Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
