9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 139X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") on a housing project developed by the assessee. 3. The brief facts of the case as emanating from records are : The assessee is a builder and developer. The assessee promoted a housing project under the name "Eisha Loreals" at Kondhwa Khurd, Pune. The assessee claimed deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act in respect of aforesaid residential project. In assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has violated conditions of clause (e) and (f) of section 80IB(10) of the Act in respect of two flats i.e. Flat No. B-201 and Flat No. B-504. Consequently, the Assessing Officer denied the benefit of deduction u/s. 80IB(10) on the entire project. Aggrieved by the assessment ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITA Nos. 1974 to 1976/PUN/2016 for assessment years 2011-12 to 2013-14 decided on 25-09-2018; and vi. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Sai Drishti Constructions in ITA No. 991/PN/2014 for assessment year 2010-11 decided on 15-02-2016. 5. On the other hand Shri S.B. Prasad representing the Department vehemently defended the assessment order and prayed for reversing the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 6. We have heard the submissions made by representatives of rival sides and have perused the orders of authorities below. The only issue in appeal is against the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in allowing proportionate deduction u/s. 80IB(10) on eligible residential units of the housing project. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere were no violations. The findings of Co-ordinate on this issue are as under : "9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The limited issue which arises before us is that where there is violation of provisions of clauses (e) and (f) of section 80IB(10) of the Act, wherein more than one flat was allotted to an individual, then the assessee is not entitled to the claim of deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act on such flats. However, the assessee is entitled to claim the proportionate deduction on the balance flats which are part of housing project, excluding the ones which had violated the provisions of clauses (e) and (f) of section 80IB(10) of the Act. 10. The Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. M/s. Namrata ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Pvt. Ltd. reported in 86 DTR 99 (Mad) and Vishwas Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT reported in 81 DTR 58 (Mad) and was of the view that the assessee was entitled to claim prorata deduction on the profits of balance project excluding two flats which were allotted to spouses of individuals. We are in conformity with the findings of CIT(A), where the violation of clause (f) of section 80IB(10) of the Act has been made by the assessee, then in respect of profits on flats allotted to spouses of individuals is to be excluded and is not entitled to the claim of deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act. The CIT(A) has already directed the Assessing Officer to verify the correctness of profits worked out by the assessee on sale of above said flats ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
