9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1663X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n respect of two flats i.e. flat Nos.3 and 4 in building D , which had covered area of more than prescribed limit. The relevant findings of the Tribunal are reproduced under which are being referred to, but not being reproduced for the sake of brevity. In the entirety of the above said facts and circumstances, where the issue is identical to the issue before the Tribunal in the earlier years, following the same parity of reasoning, we direct the Assessing Officer to re-work prorata deduction under section 80IB(10) Deduction u/s 80IB(10) in respect of project Kumar Kruti - prorata deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act in respect of eligible units - said deduction was denied to the assessee on account of two accounts i.e. where the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee s claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) in respect of projects Kumar Kruti and Kumar Shantiniketan. 2) The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in not appreciating the import of Section 80IB(10) which speaks about sanction to the 'housing project' and not to the individual buildings in the project 3) The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in not appreciating the fact that Kumar Kruti project is a part of larger project i.e. Kumar City which was approved on 08.08.2003 and the housing project had not been completed by 31.03.2008, thus violating the conditions provided in clause (a) to section 801B(10) of the Act. 4) The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year under consideration, the assessee had claimed deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act for the project Kumar Shantiniketan, which was situated at S.No.138/5, Pashan and comprised of 8 buildings. The assessee was recognizing the income by following the percentage completion method of accounting. The Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings noted that in respect of the said project, two of the flats bearing Nos.3 and 4 in D Building had a garden area of 236.03 sq. ft., which was not on the ground floor but was on podium. The said garden area was for the exclusive use of the said two flat owners. The garden area was covered and was not open to sky. Further, it was sold to the flat owner at a price. The Assessing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rea of said 8 flats, the total area of the flat was 2029 sq. ft., which was more than the maximum permissible built up area and following the assessment orders relating to assessment years 2008-09, 2009- 10 and 2010-11, the deduction claimed under section 80IB(10) of the Act in respect of project Kumar Kruti was denied to the assessee. 6. The CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee in turn, following the ratio laid down by Pune Bench of Tribunal in assessee s own case in ITA No.1164/PN/2012 relating to assessment year 2008-09 and ITA No.2210/PN/2012 relating to assessment year 2009-10, order dated 15.04.2013. The relevant findings of the Tribunal are reproduced under paras 3.4 to 3.5 at pages 4 to 6 of the appellate order. The Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was denied to the assessee. The Tribunal had in the earlier years relating to assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10, allowed the claim of assessee with directions to the Assessing Officer to allow prorata deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act and denied the said deduction in respect of two flats i.e. flat Nos.3 and 4 in building D , which had covered area of more than prescribed limit. The relevant findings of the Tribunal are reproduced under paras 3.4 and 3.5 at pages 4 to 6 of the appellate order, which are being referred to, but not being reproduced for the sake of brevity. In the entirety of the above said facts and circumstances, where the issue is identical to the issue before the Tribunal in the earlier years, following the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2010-11 vide order dated 16.10.2015 had directed the Assessing Officer to work out the prorata deduction in respect of units sold in Kumar Kruti project and re-work prorata deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act in respect of Kumar Shantiniketan . Following the same parity of reasoning, we uphold the order of CIT(A) in directing the Assessing Officer to work out the prorata deduction in respect of units sold in Kumar Kruti project and Kumar Shantiniketan . In the entirety of the above said facts and circumstances, we uphold the order of CIT(A) and dismiss the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue. 10. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on this 13th day of January, 2017. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
