9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 502X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng that for the purpose of considering deduction, it is not necessary that the Assessee, engaged in developing and construction of housing project and the only point is that he should be the owner of the property. ITAT, on facts also found that the Assessee has obtained approvals of the plan for the proposed projects and also planned the entire project regarding number of floors, number of apartments in each floor, cost of each apartment based on the square foot area of the apartment and it was done as a composite project at the proposed site in S.Nos.486/1 and 482. In the light of the factual findings coupled with the fact that the Assessee's own case, on the earlier occasions in was allowed and though a ground was raised before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a less than one acre and therefore, not allowed the claim of deduction under the said Section. The Assessing Officer has also placed reliance upon the Board of Direct Taxes Instructions No.4 of 2009 dated 20.06.2009 and that apart, the deduction allowed in respect of earlier orders has to be withdrawn and therefore, a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was issued on 01.03.2013 for the Assessment Year 2008-09. (3)The Income Tax Officer, BW XV[1], Chennai, vide Assessment Order dated 08.03.2014, has concluded the assessment holding that similar view was taken for the year 2009-10, that is, each plan and approval is an independent project comprised in an area less than that specified in the Section and thus, not qualifyin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... partly, vide order dated 24.10.2016. (6)The Revenue, aggrieved by the same, filed a further appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, [D Bench], at Chennai, [in short ''the ITAT'']. (7)The ITAT, vide order dated 20.11.2017, has taken note of the judgment in TCA.No.257 of 2012 and further found that the project of the assess was also in an area more than one acre and the approvals were obtained on unit basis only for the benefit of taking advantage of the Development Control Rules of the Local Authority, viz., the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority [CMDA]. The ITAT, having recorded the said finding, found that the appeal filed by the Revenue is devoid of merits and insofar as the Assessee's Cross Obj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the judgment dated 12.11.2014 made in TCA.No.257 of 2012, the Revenue has preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the same is pending and hence, prays for interference. (10)This Court paid its best attention to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant/Revenue and also carefully scrutinised the materials placed before it. (11)In TCA.No.257 of 2012, the following substantial questions of law were raised:- 1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled for deduction under Section 80IB when the assessee is not the owner of the property and had executed a contract with the purchasers of un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11.2012 in TCA.Nos.581 and 582 of 2011 and 314 and 315 of 2012. (14)The ITAT, on facts also found that the Assessee has obtained approvals of the plan for the proposed projects and also planned the entire project regarding number of floors, number of apartments in each floor, cost of each apartment based on the square foot area of the apartment and it was done as a composite project at the proposed site in S.Nos.486/1 and 482. (15)In the light of the factual findings coupled with the fact that the Assessee's own case, on the earlier occasions in TCA.Nos.581 582/2011 and 314 and 315/2012 vide common judgment dated 01.11.2012, was allowed and though a ground was raised before the ITAT as to the location of the plots in two differe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
