9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 1441X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Latha Ramachandran and Shri K. Ramachandran. For flats exceeding 1500 sq.ft., a co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal found that flat Nos.403 & 404, in fact, exceeded 1500 sq.ft. The language employed in Section 80- IB(10)(c) of the Act does not warrant deduction claim altogether if some of the units exceed the specific dimensions. The Tribunal in the earlier assessment year found that consequent disallowance has to be only on proportionate basis. This Tribunal placed its reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in Arun Excello Foundations (P) Ltd. (2012 (12) TMI 415 - MADRAS HIGH COURT). No reason to confirm the orders of the lower authorities and accordingly, the same are set aside. - ITA Nos.224 & 225/Mds/2016 & C.O. Nos.51 & 52/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Appeals) found that the assessee sold the flats prior to amendment to Section 80-IB(10) of the Act, therefore, the amendment made in Section 80-IB(10) of the Act cannot be applied to deny the benefit of deduction under Section 80-IB(10) of the Act. The CIT(Appeals) referred to the order of this Tribunal in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 2010-11 in I.T.A. No.2902/Mds/2014 dated 27.02.2015 and found that the flats sold prior to the amendment cannot be subject matter of disallowance under Section 80-IB(10) of the Act. According to the Ld. D.R., the Revenue has already filed an appeal before the Madras High Court against the order of this Tribunal in the assessee's own case for assessment year 2010-11 and in fact, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before this Tribunal is that an appeal is pending before Apex Court. According to the Ld. counsel, mere pendency of an appeal before the Apex Court cannot be a ground for not following the judgment of Madras High Court and the decision of co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal. 5. Referring to the cross-objections filed by the assessee, the Ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that the CIT(Appeals) has rightly not adjudicated the claim under Section 80-IB(10)(c) of the Act. During the year under consideration, according to the Ld. counsel, no flat was sold / allotted to any individual more than one residential unit. The flat Nos.403 and 404 were sold in the assessment year 2010-11, which was subject matter of appeal before this Tribunal in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l was confirmed by the Madras High Court, it would not be proper for the Revenue to reopen the issue for the subsequent assessment years. As far as the sale of residential unit to Smt. Latha Ramachandran and Shri K. Ramachandran was concerned, the issue was settled by Madras High Court and now pending before Apex Court. Unless the judgment of Madras High Court was reversed by the Apex Court, there cannot be any reason for the Revenue to reopen the issue once again. Therefore, this Tribunal do not find any justification in disallowing the claim of the assessee merely because two flats were sold to Smt. Latha Ramachandran and Shri K. Ramachandran. 7. Now coming to the flats exceeded 1500 sq.ft., a co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal found t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
