9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 925X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Munjeri Gultekdi. The appellant pleads that the Kumar Puram Project is an independent project which satisfies the conditions and the profits of which are eligible for deduction u/s 80IB(10). 2. The computation of the profit eligible for deduction u/s 80IB(10) for Kumar Puram project amounting to Rs. 17,60,408 as per the certificate of the auditors in Form 10CCB, filed alongwith the return of income was not correct and that the following expenses ought to be prorated in the ratio of 24.4% (representing sales of Kumar Puram project to the Total Turnover for the year) and reduced from the said profits to arrive at the figure of profit eligible for 80IB(10) deduction. i) Bank guarantee loan processing charges Rs. 62500. ii) Advertisement expenses Rs. 576280. iii) Legal and professional charges Rs. 985500. iv) Interest expenses Rs. 9666089. The appellant pleads that the amount certified by the auditors is the correct profit eligible for deduction u/s 80IB(10). 3. Out of Interest Expenses of Rs.96,66,089, amount of Rs.2838432 was allocable to Kumar Puram Project for the purpose of computing profit eligible for deduction u/s 80IB(10). T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich reads as under: 3.17 The Assessing Officer submitted a letter No.PN/ACIT/Cir.6/2005-06 dt.9.11.2005 on this subject and the operative portion of this letter is reproduced as under: The case of assessee was finalized in scrutiny for A.Y. 2001-02 and 2002-03 and is in appeal before the CIT(A). The case of A.Y. 2003- 04 is also in scrutiny. During the course of assessment proceedings, the following facts have come to our notice which are relevant for the proceeding before the CIT(A). 1. The foremost condition is that the undertaking has commenced or commences development and construction of the housing project on or after 1.10.1998. In this regard, the enquiries were done from PMC and it is found that the commencement of the housing project in the name of Kumar Puram was started much before 1998. The necessary documentary evidence in this regard is reproduced below. (a) The commencement certificate was issued on 24.4.1998, which is enclosed for perusal. Ltr. dt. 24.4.98 Commencement certificate issued by Asst.Engr. Constrn PMC Pune. This commencement certificate is issued in the name of V.R.Supe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the year 1995 and only revised layouts were got approved from year to year. The assessee had not furnished such information and original papers during the course of assessment proceedings for A.Y. 2002-03. The original project had already started before the due date i.e. 1.10.1998 which is one of the conditions for benefit of 80IB(10) that the construction commence after this date. These papers show that such condition has not been fulfilled and hence claim for benefit u/s. 80IB is wrong. The documents mentioned above have also been verified and explained by the building Inspector of PMC. This is to bring to your kind notice as appeal is pending for A.Y.2001-02 and 2002-03. 2. It may be pointed out that in para 3 4 of the remand report we had raised two issues regarding capitalization of interest on immovable properties and Kumar city project. We had worked out an amount of Rs.17,18,724/- and Rs.5,67,724/-respectively which was to be capitalized. However, during the course of proceedings before the Hon'ble CIT(A) the assessee has worked out an amount of Rs.29,64,928/~ in respect of other properties (Rs.45,75,517/- on daily product basis) and has not allocated any i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onclusions of the AO are not correct in the light of facts and the law. 1b) The subject plan as mentioned earlier is the initial plan that was furnished to the PMC and does not contravene the provisions of section 80IB(10). The plans furnished by the assessee to the AO during asst. proceedings is the revised plan dated 16.2.00 as per which construction of the buildings has actually taken place. This also does not contravene the provisions of section 80IB. 1c) The AO's contention that construction upto ground floor level was completed upto Setp.98 based on letter by M/s.Pundalik Pundalik Architects is not correct as they were not architects for Kumar Puram Project but for Business Court. We are enclosing copy of confirmation from M/s.Pundalik Pundalik. It is also evident from the documents on record furnished in course of assessment proceedings that M/s Butala and Nivsarkar were the Architects for the Kumar Puram project which is eligible for deduction u/s 80IB. d) As explained earlier the PMC's commencement certificate 3928 dt.24.4.93 is the initial plan submitted to the PMC. The project has been executed as per revised plans dt.20.10.00 which have bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5-06 dated 12,12.2005 and which was forwarded by Addl.CIT vide letter No.Pn.Addl.CIT.Rg.6/2005- 06 dt. 15.12.2005. The operative portion of this report is reproduced as under: During the course of appellate proceedings, a document was submitted which was obtained from Municipal Corporation, which shows that the construction was completed upto ground floor by September 1998. On the basis of the commencement certificate, DP plan, statement of the employee of the PMC it was confirmed that this document pertained to Kumar Puram Project, which is located on 411 S.No.707. 2. However, the Authorised representative of the assessee company in letter dt.6.12.2005, has pleaded that the letter which shows the constructions of the project pertains to Business Court and not to Kumar Puram in respect of which deduction u/s. 80-IB has been claimed. It was claimed that the letter is written by Pundalik and Pundalik Architects, who were architects of Business Court and not of Kumar Puram. By this the assessee wants to take plea that the construction in Business Court had started before October 1998 and not in Kumar Puram. 3. The claim of the assessee is however, not supported by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8 iii) M/s Pundalik Pundalik's reply dt. 18.9.98(which is the basis of the Assessing Officer's contentions) From these documents it is amply clear that the subject project under consideration is Business Court and not Kumar Puram. The AO in his report has also argued that there are no expenses debited in the assessee's accounts w.r.t. Business Court till 31.3.2000 thereby indicating that it was Kumar Puram Project which was the subject of consideration in the above documents and that it has commenced before 1.10.98. Business Court was a project of Shri Vinayak Supnekar the land owner who spent for the same. The assesses spent on business Court development and construction after demolishing the earlier incomplete structure. Expenditure on Business Court was incurred in Y.E.31.3.2001 as evident from the assessee's accounts. The Kumar Puram project was on land behind Business Court which did not have any access as the adjacent lands were occupied by the land owner Shri Supnekar and by M/s D.S. Kulkarni Developers for their Chandradeep Project. The access to the Kumar Puram Project was made available by a new D.P. Road sanctioned by the PMC whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d access to the center of Plot No.6 by aligning with Plot No.1. 8. Plot Nos 3 and the area to the north of Plot No.5 (BC Plot) are owned by Shri Vinayak Supnekar and/or DSK Developers. 4. From the submissions and counter submissions, it would be seen that this office is called upon to decipher and decide two basic issues germane to allowability of deduction u/s 80IB in the present case. The first issue relates to the determination of date on which the development and construction in respect of Kumar Puram project started. The second issue relates to correctness or otherwise of allocation of expenditure because it is submitted by the learned Assessing Officer that these expenses have not been properly allocated by the appellant to the priority projects and thereby claim of deduction u/s 80IB has been inflated. 4.1 The submission of the appellant that the project was started on or after 1st Oct.98 and, therefore, deduction u/s 80IB has been correctly claimed is as under:- As regards the letter of M/s Pundalik and Pundalik, it is submission of the appellant that this letter is in respect of Business Court. It is further submitted that the plan on which the lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o.,1, plot no.2, plot no.3, plot no.4 and what was then known as plot no.4 is later known as plot no.6 and on this plot no.6 which was earlier plot no.4, Kumar Puram project is located. ii) From the DPO no.2048 /Ml/748 dt.13.7.98 it is clear that plot no.411 has been sub divided into 6 plots and this development plan contains plot area along with area Key plan for building in respect of plot no.1, 2, 3, 4 5 and 6 of plot no.411. This development plan is signed by Butala and Nivsarkar and approved by Pune Municipal Corporation vide their letter dated 13.7 1998. iii) Dr. Navaljit Kapoor also placed reliance on commencement certificate dated 24.4.98 which is addressed to Vimal Kumar Jain Another and is in respect of plot no.411. From this certificate, it is submitted by the learned Addl.CIT Rg.6, it is clear that commencement certificate also contained portion of land in respect of which plan was approved vide1 DPO no.2048/HI/748 dt.13.7.93. iv) The learned Addl.CIT has also produced true copy of building plan in respect of plot no,4 later on named as plot no.6 on which Kumar Puram is located. This plan is dated 24,4.98 and commencement certificate which is numbere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is submitted by the Addl.CIT that schedule VII relating to current assets shows WIP against Business Court as on 31.3.2001 at Rs.36,36,093/- and, therefore, it is clear that till financial year ending 31.3.2000 there was no expenditure in respect of this project. It is submission of the Addl.CIT that commencement certificate no.5623 dt.20.1.2002 mentions final plot no.411 and plot no.6 and commencement certificate dt. 13.7,98 also refers to final plot no.6 on which Kumar Puram is located. In view of this, it is submission of the Addl.CIT that commencement certificates on which the learned AR relies for its conclusion that construction started subsequent to commencement certificate is bereft of merit because commencement certificates are issued number of times depending on change in building plan. It is submitted by Dr. Kapoor that building under construction at Mukund Nagar, value of which is shown at Rs.23 lakhs for accounting year 97-98, does not prove that this construction does not pertain to construction on plot no.4 which is later known as plot no.6 on which project Kumar Puram is located. It is further submitted that balance sheet of V.S, Supnekar shows advance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Delhi or Mumbai or within twenty five kilometers from the municipal limits of these cities and one thousand and five hundred square feet at any other place. From the perusal of section 80IB(10), as it then stood, it is absolutely clear that legislative intendment actuating enactment of section 80IB(10) is promotion of new projects and, therefore, I am of the considered view that the benefit of 80IB(10), as it then stood, was not available in case of project which is dismantled midway and new project is brought up on the same project. As regards the issue raised in 5(ii) hereinbefore, after taking into account the provisions of law, I am of the considered view that project located on revenue survey number in respect of which DP plan has been sanctioned and commencement certificate has been issued constitutes one project and this project is not capable of being broken into several projects in respect of some of which claim u/s 80IB is made and in respect of some of which no such claim is made because such project/projects did not fulfill the conditions contained u/s 80IB(10). It may also be mentioned that since entire project on Survey No.707 is one project and Bu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould be sanctioned after handing over H.C.M.T.R. road to PMC free of cost. 3. All conditions mentioned in sanctioned lay out DPO/595/III/535 dated 29.5.95 are binding on sanction/PAH. 4. Open space provided in this lay out (2485.49) should be open for all residence of plot no.1,2,4 and final plot no.411/2. 5. Choice plan should be produced before asking any development on site. It would be seen that what was plot no.4 in earlier DP plan has become plot no.6 and on this very plot the project which was later named as Kumar Puram is located. At this stage suffice it to conclude that the projects in respect of all the six plots constituted single project and, therefore, it is held that since it is admitted fact that construction in respect of this plot had already been started by Supnekar and the cost of project in respect of such construction is admittedly Rs.23 lakhs as on 31.3.98 as contained in balance sheet of Shri Supnekar, the construction in respect of projects at plot no.411 had started in F.Y.97-98. Since it is admitted position that the structure standing on plot no.411 was dismantled, it is held that in respect of projects on plot no.411, no deductio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... known as Kumar Puram construction started in consequence of DPO No.2048 and building plan no.3928 dt.24.4.98 factually incorrect. Thus drawing adverse inference, it is held that development and construction of Kumar Puram project was started before 1.10.98. 7(iv) A perusal of section 80IB(10) as it then stood shows that for deduction u/s 80IB(10) there are three conditions to be fulfilled. The first condition is that such undertaking has commenced or commences development and construction of the lousing project on or after the first day of October 98. The words used by legislative are development and construction and not merely construction. This clearly shows the legislative intendment that even if the development of a project has started before 1.10.98, though no actual construction has started before that date, such project would be outside the ambit of deduction u/s 80IB(10) as contemplated by the legislative intendment contained u/s 80IB(10). There may be cases where development of the project starts before construction starts. In case of appellant in respect of area of land which is subject of commencement certificate issued on 24.4.98 which refers to earlier developme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the essential conditions for claim of deduction u/s. 80IB(10) is that the assessee should start the development and construction of the housing project after 01.10.1998. The CIT(A) has held that the assessee had started the development of the housing project prior to 01.10.1998 and hence, the assessee is not eligible to claim the deduction in respect of the project Kumar Puram. The various objections of the CIT(A) and the contentions of the assessee are summarized as under: Sr. No. Objections of the learned CIT(A) in respect of claim of deduction u/s.80IB(10) Stand of the assessee 1 Plot No. 411 is one single plot and the various projects constructed on the sub-plots constitute one project, [refer para 7(i), page 40-41 of his order] a. The assessee submits that the subplots 1 to 6 of final plot no. 411 are 6 different plots. In fact, plots marked yellow - are sold by Shri Supnekar to DSK Developers. b. The layout is common for all the sub-plots. But it does not mean that all the plots constitute one project. c. The assessee submits that the six sub-plots ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the building plan was approved prior to 01.10.1998, what is material is start of development and construction of housing project after 01.10.1998 and the assessee submitted that the construction had commenced only after April 1999. e. The expenditure incurred by the assessee as pointed out by the CIT(A) is on petty items like purchase of iron sheets, security charges, labour payments which are incurred for putting up the fencing or security cabins, etc. etc. and they are not incurred for development and construction of the project. f. If actual development had started as contended by the CIT(A), such petty expenditure would not have been incurred by the assessee. As against this, the assessee has incurred expenditure about Rs. 90 lacs in F.Y. 1999-2000 (page 126) which clearly indicates that the assessee had started the development of the housing project after April 1999. g. The assessee also clarified that the booking of the flats was started in F.Y. 1999- 2000. h. For this purpose, the assessee places reliance of ITAT, Pune decision in the case of Nirmiti Construction [95 TTJ 1117]. 4 The contention of the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case laws, it is grossly incorrect to consider all the construction on the total land as one project. The assessee placed reliance on the following case laws - i) ITAT, Pune Bench, in the case of M/s. Rahul Construction Co. v. ITO in ITA Nos. 1250/PN/09 707/PN/10. ii) ITAT, Pune Bench in the case of Aditya Developers [ITA No. 791 792/PN/08] iii) Bombay H.C. Vandana Properties. iv) Mudhit Madanlal Gupta v. ACIT 51 DTR 217 (Mum)(Trib) v) Brigade Enterprises (P) Ltd. 119 TTJ 269 (Bang.) 7. In view of the above, assessee submitted that the deduction u/s 80IB(10) may be allowed. On the other hand, Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that Plot No.411 at Mukund Nagar, Pune, was single plot and various projects constructed on the sub-plots constituted one project. The building Business Court constructed on sub-plot No.5 is a commercial building and hence, assessee had constructed commercial area in excess of 2000 sq.ft. or 5% of the built up area whichever is less. The assessee has incurred exp on iron and steel, security charges, labour charges and labour contractor charges as indicated above. Thus, started constructed of the project before 01 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rior to 1st October 1998 and, therefore, the benefit of Section 80IB(10) cannot be granted. There is no merit in the above argument, because, when the plans for A, B, C and D buildings were approved during the period from 1993 to 1996, construction of 'E' building was not even contemplated on the plot in question. It is only in the year 2001 when the status of the land was converted from surplus vacant land into within the ceiling limit land by the State Government, an additional building could be constructed on the plot in question and accordingly building plan for construction of 'E' building was submitted and the same was approved by the local authority on 11th October 2002. 21. The fact that the local authority, namely the Municipal Corporation approved the building plan for 'E' building on the condition that all the objections raised in the Intimation of Disapproval dated 12th May 1993 relating to the earlier housing project on the same plot of land shall be applicable and should be complied with, cannot be a ground to hold that 'E' building is extension of the earlier housing project because the earlier housing project was completed prior ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g project and, therefore, the date on which the earlier housing project had commenced construction could not be applied to the housing project consisting of 'E' building merely because the conditions set out while granting approval to the earlier housing project have also been made applicable to the housing project in question. 23. The next argument of the Revenue is that to avail the deduction under Section 80IB(10), the housing project must be on the size of a vacant plot of land which has minimum area of one acre. In the present case, there are five buildings (A, B, C, D and E) on a plot ad-measuring 2.36 acres, hence, the proportionate area for each building would be less than one acre and, therefore, the benefit of Section 80IB(10) could not be granted in respect of the housing project consisting 'E' building. 24. As rightly contended by the counsel for the assessee and the intervenors, Section 80IB(10)(b) specifies the size of the plot of land but not the size of the housing project. The size of the plot of land, as per Section 80IB(10) must have minimum area of one acre. The Section does not lay down that the plot having minimum area of one acre m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s wholly unwarranted and such a construction which defeats the object with which the Section was enacted must be rejected. 28. Apart from the above, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) by its letter dated 4th May 2001 addressed to the Maharashtra Chamber of Housing Industry has stated thus : ''The undersigned is directed to refer to your letter No,MCHI:RSA:m:388/19799/3 dated 1st January 2001 and to state that the additional housing project on existing housing project site can qualify as infrastructure facility under Section 10(23G) and 80IB (10) provided it is taken up by a separate undertaking, having separate books of accounts, so as to ensure that correct profits can be ascertained for the purpose of Section 80IB and also to identify receipts and repayments of long term finances under the provisions of Section 10(23G), separately financing arrangements and also, if it separately fulfills all other statutory conditions listed in Sections 10(23G) and 80(B(10). With regard to your query regarding the definition of Housing Project, it is clarified that any project which has been approved by a local authority as a housing project should be considered adequat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing of the project. Hence, the intimation of starting of development of project was given by assessee in April, 1998 which makes it clear that construction was not commenced before 1.10.1998 even though plan was approved prior to 01.10.1998. The essence of starting of development and construction is that same started on 18.04.1999. The construction started on 18.04.1999 and same was intimated by the assessee to concerned Municipal Corporation on 05.05.1999. 10. We also find that the ITAT Pune Bench in the case of DCIT vs. M/s.Aditya Developers ITA.No.791 792/PN/2008, has held as under: 6. We have considered the above submissions and have gone through the orders of the authorities below, material available on the record and the decisions relied upon by the parties. The facts in details submitted by the assessee before the A.O vide letter dated 16.10.2006 have also been gone through. For a ready reference, para nos. 1 to 8 of the letter dated 16.10.2006 submitted by the assessee before the A.O are being reproduced hereunder : 1. M/s Aditya Developers purchased a plot of land bearing Survey No. 1/A(Part) of Kondhwa Khurd, Pune from Ranade and their relatives. Thereafte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 001 constructed all flats following all these norms. Since our new housing project is as per the plans sanctioned in March 2001, it is no way concerned with earlier lapsed sanctions. We have never started any development or construction prior to March 2001 on the rear area of land of 8966 sq.mtr on which buildings K,M,N,I,O,P have been constructed. In support of this we are enclosing herewith photocopy of letter of PMC dt. 5-10-2006. English translation of the same is as under : PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Construction Control Dept. Outward No. BCO/5102 Date: 5-10-2006 To, M/s Aditya Develooers, Residing at Sadashiv Peth No. 619,Pune 30 Sub: Regarding construction on S.No. 1(Part),Kondhwa, Pune Ref: Your letter dt. 3-10-2006 On the above mentioned subject and under the letter referred above, it is being informed that permission for construction of K building at S.No. 1(Part) Kondhwa Khurd, Pune was given vide No. 4975 dt. 9-3-01 and certificate of plinth checking was given under No. BCO/03/74 DT. 27-9-2001. Also permission for building MNIOP was given vide letter No. 4981 dt. 29-3-2001 As per the available record th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were furnished to the Municipal Corporation for sanction on 6th June 1998 and construction work was commenced after building permission was sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation on 23rd July 1999. Department took the stand that the development commenced with the development agreement and acquiring irrecoverable power of attorney and more so that lay outs were furnished to the municipal corporation for preliminary sanction on 6th June 1998, the assessees submitted that the preliminary sanction was required to be given which constituted no objection from municipal corporation for allowing assessee to have the construction on the said property. It was contended that on the basis of preliminary sanction, the assessee made an application for converting the said land into Non- agricultural land. This application was made on 25th November 1998 and the revenue authorities converted the said agricultural land into Non-agricultural land on 13th June 1999. It was also contended by the assessee that the building plan was submitted to the municipal corporation and the said corporation sanctioned the building plan on 23rd July 1999. In other words, the municipal corporation gave the permiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 residential block raw houses, Oak Tree Place, a Club, and Community Centre, a School, a Park and claimed deduction u/s. 80 IB (10) in respect of 2 residential units which if deducted separately were eligible for the relief. The A.O treated the entire project as a single unit and denied relief u/s. 80 IB (10) in entirety. The Tribunal justified the action of the Ld CIT(A) in allowing relief u/s. 80 IB(10) treating the said 2 units as independent units. The Tribunal observed that the group housing approval was approval of a master plan as a concept and if a particular unit satisfies the condition of Section 80 IB (10), the assessee is entitled for deduction. The Tribunal held that Plan for development was only a work order and not final plans sanctioned by local authority. For any project, there could not have been a plan without submission of the detailed building plans by the architect and on the requisite details required to be submitted for approval of the building plans by the local authorities. In other words, the Tribunal accepted the contention of the assessee that the development plan is only conceptual and the detailed construction plans are not submitted nor approved wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is obtained more than once, such housing project shall be deemed to have been approved on the date on which the building plan of such housing project is first approved by the local authority; From the very reading of the Explanation (i) makes it clear that the date on which building plan of such housing project is approved shall be deemed the date of approval of the housing project. We thus find that the assessee is very much eligible for the claimed deduction u/s. 80 IB (10) on the project KKT in view of the above cited decisions including decision of Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Nirmiti Construction Vs. DCIT (Supra), following which, in our view, the Ld CIT(A) has rightly allowed the claimed deduction. The same is upheld. The issue raised are thus decided in favour of the assessee. 8. So far as decision of Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. Viswas Promotrs (P) Ltd. (Supra) relied upon by the Ld. D.R. is concerned, we find that the facts therein are distinguishable as in that case, assessee had completed 4 housing projects, out of those 4 projects, in 2 projects assessee had constructed flats exceeding 1500 sq.ft. and also flats of le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on which building plan of such housing project has been firstly approved by the local authority will be treated as approval in respect of the housing project. When we read Explanation (ii) with Explanation (i) it makes clear that completion of construction of such building plan first approved by the local authority will be taken the date of completion of construction of such building plan when completion certificate has been issued by the local authority. In other words, in clause (i) of the Explanation, it has been made clear that would be the housing project, first approval of which, by the local authority would be taken as starting point of the Housing Project and in clause No. (ii), it has been made clear that what would be the Completion Certificate in respect of such housing project issued by local authority to compute the prescribed time limit for verification of eligibility of assessee for the claimed deduction. In view of the above explanation, we find substance in the contention of the ld. A.R. that approval of the housing project and approval of building plan are two different concepts. The Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT Vs. Brigade Enterprises (P) L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thorities below have not disputed the fact furnished in this regard by the assessee that under the project Atul Nagar consisting of buildings A1 to A5, the first building plan for A type was approved by the PMC on 29.4.2003 vide Commencement Certificate No. 4269 (page No. 4 of the paper book). However, actual construction of A type building was executed as per the revised plan vide No. C.C. 4101/27/6/2003 (PAGE No. 5 of the paper book). The size of the plot on which the A type building i.e. A1 to A6 have been constructed is 1,39,466 sq.ft. The project A type building i.e. A1 to A5 consists of 360 residential units and the construction has been completed between 10.1.2005 to 31.8.2005 (page Nos. 6 to 9 of paper book). The authorities below have also not disputed this material fact that residential units has a maximum built up area of 1500 sq.ft. Likewise, these material facts that B Group buildings in Rahul Nisarg Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., have been constructed on land area of 138203 sq.ft., has not been denied by the authorities below. They have also not denied these material facts that the first building plan was sanctioned on 29.4.2003 vide Commencement Certificate N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure has been incurred on items of Iron and steel, securities charges, labour charges, labour contractor charges in F.Y. 1998-99 which indicated that assessee has started construction of the project before 01.10.1999. In this regard, we find that building plan in respect of plot No.6 was obtained on 24.04.1998. There is nothing on record to suggest that assessee started construction on the said plot. The expenditure incurred by the assessee as pointed out by the CIT(A) is small items like purchase of iron and steel, security charges, labour charges and labour contractor charges which were incurred for upkeep, fencing charges, security expenses etc., and it cannot be said to be incurred for the development and construction of the project. For actual development, expenditure incurred on a big way as has been done in F.Y. 1999-2000. Even the booking of the flats started in F.Y. 1999-2000. The fact has been intimated by the assessee to the Pune Municipal Corporation on 05.05.1999 wherein it was submitted that as per Rule 7.2 of DC Rules of PMC, assessee has to intimate the Corporation about the starting of the project. Hence, the estimation of starting of the development of the project ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
