9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 467X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent claimed deduction of Rs. 3,89,07,405/-under Section 80IB (10). The project was first approved on 31.03.2001 and as per the provisions of Section 80IB (10) the same should have been completed on or before 31.03.2008. The assessee - Respondent, as recorded in the order of CIT(A), submitted a completion certificate dated 28.03.2008. Even on 28.03.2008, the building 'G' was marked to be parking only is undisputed. Therefore, upto 31.03.2008, respondent had not contemplated any residential units in the building 'G'. Subsequently, on 19.04.2011 respondent got the plan approved after purchase of TDR whereby the plan for said building 'G', which contemplated parking only, was revised and the same was approved as a building with ground plus 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ' and not in respect of building 'G'. Even though the sanctioned project was for buildings 'A', 'B', 'C', 'D', 'E', 'H' and 'I' and 'G' as parking slab, Shri Sawant submitted that the plan which got sanctioned in 2001, ought to be seen as a whole and it had contemplated building 'G' to be parking. Shri Sawant submitted that respondent had taken part completion certificate only before 31.03.2008 and the completion certificate of building 'G' was obtained from respondent in which it clearly mentioned that building 'G' was completed on 12.05.2011 along with the parking. Shri Sawant submitted that as per the provisions under Section 80IB (10), the amount of deduction in the case of an undertaking developing and building housing projects approve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal requires to be rejected. 4. The substantial questions of law proposed are as under : (i) "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in allowing the deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act, without appreciating that since the housing project was approved on 31.03.2001, it was liable to be completed by 31.03.2008, whereas, the assessee had not completed the entire project by the stipulated date, i.e. 31.03.2008 and the stipulated completion certificate issued by the Pune Municipal Corporation was also in respect of only Buildings A, B, C, D, E, H and I and not in respect of Building 'G', even though the sanctioned project was for Buildings A, B, C, D, E, G, H and I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... completed without the parking of building 'G' as approved by the local authority. Undisputably the entire project excluding building 'G' has been completed within the stipulated period and the completion/ occupancy certificate was also received within the time limit prescribed under Section 80IB (10). As TDR for building 'G' was not available upto 2011, appellant could not have constructed the said building. As held in Vandana Properties (supra), the expression housing project is not defined under the Act and the expression housing project in common parlance should be accepted, which would mean constructing a building or group of buildings consisting of several residential units. 7. In our view, the building 'G' cannot be part and parcel o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
