TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 1123X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... q.ft. The profits from the project have been offered on the project completion basis. The completion certificate for the project has been obtained in piece-mill for the part of the project. However, the completion certificate for the entire project has not been obtained by the assessee from Pune Municipal Corporation. During the year under consideration the assessee had shown profit of ₹ 64,61,135/- which has been claimed as exempt u/s.80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act. 2.1 The Assessing Officer analysed the provisions of section 80IB(10) and noted that the assessee has not fulfilled two conditions, i.e. (1) the area of the shopping is exceeding 2000 sq.ft. and (2) the assessee did not produce the completion certificate from Pune Municipal Corporation. The Assessing Officer, therefore, asked the assessee to explain as to why the claim of exemption u/s.80IB(10) should not be disallowed. The assessee made elaborate written submission which has been reproduced by the Assessing Officer from pages 3 to 17 of the assessment order. It was submitted that the assessee is an AOP constituted by the following members : (a) M/s. Siddhivinayak Shree - a partnership firm (b) M/s. Giri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... OTAL 168 40 39 2.4 Members of the assessee AOP entered into a Supplementary Joint Venture Agreement on 27th July 2000 in respect of plot no. 4 admeasuring about 12,162 Square Meters which was owned by the member M/s Giriraj Developer. PMC, the local authority, approved the first building plan in respect of plot no. 4 vide commencement certificate no. 4410 dated 6th March 2000. Project on plot no. 4 hereinafter referred to as Project B consisted of 3 buildings namely Gold (G), Crown (H), Kangan (I+K). The project consisted of 249 flats each admeasuring less than 1500 sq. ft built up as detailed below Name of the Buildings Residential Flats Shops G = GOLD 101 0 H =CROWN 68 0 I+K = KANGAN 80 0 TOTAL 249 0 Project B does not include any shop or other commercial establishment. 2.5 The assessee claimed the deduction under section 80IB(10) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unauthorized construction as alleged in the said letter and there was no building B-1 and B-2 included in the layout of the assessee. The assessee further submitted that the unauthorized construction was done by the other third parties on the adjoining plot and the objection was raised as the plot of land of the assessee and adjoining plot was amalgamated under compulsion. The assessee further brought to the notice of the AO that building B-1 B-2 are constructed on adjoining plot. h. In respect of the objection raised by Urban Land Ceiling Department the assessee brought to the notice of the AO that it has allotted the built up area of 944 sq. meters as against 942 sq. meter agreed to be allotted for Economic Weaker Section of the society as per section 20 of the ULC Act. i. It was submitted that the assessee has given possession of all flats under consideration before December 2007 in respect of which the completion has not received. Details giving the date of agreement, date of possession, undertaking for maintenance charges payable and MSEB connections (Electricity Meter allotment) were filed before the AO. j. In respect of the non completion of the projects the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A in respect of 120 flats and 39 shops. Therefore, the project A on plot no. 3 was complete. The AO gave no objection and his consent for admission of additional evidence and the same has been admitted by CIT(A). 4.1 The Ld. CIT(A) called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer who had no objection for admission of the additional evidences. After confronting the remand report to the assessee the Ld.CIT(A) accepted the contention of the assessee that it is engaged in construction and development of 2 separate and independent projects by observing as under : 3.7 I have also perused the additional evidence filed by the appellant being the certificate of PMC dated 13.11.2009, certifying that both the proposals were separate, and separately approved and sanctioned vide different commencement certificates. Considering the different commencement certificates for the two projects dated 11.01.99 and 06.03.2000, they are seen to be separated by time and space since there was also a road passing in between these two, along with the revised form no. 10CCB furnished as additional evidence, it is held that the projects 'A' and 'B' were two different projects in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore 31st March 2008. The appellant prays that the proportionate deduction under section 80IB (10) in respect of residential units/flats for which completion certificate is granted by PMC may please be allowed. 3) The appellant hereby reserves the right to add, amend, or raise any additional ground or grounds of appeal or delete or withdraw any of the ground of appeal/s 5.1 The Ld. Counsel for the assessee strongly challenged the order of the CIT(A). 6. So far as the issue raised by the Ld.CIT(A) that even though the project is completed before May 2006 but the assessee has not obtained the completion certificate before 31-03-2008 is concerned the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the condition of obtaining completion certificate of project is not mandatory and what is important is substantial compliance which needs to be established. Referring to the decision of Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Tarnetar Corproation in Tax Appeal No.1241/PN/2001 reported in 26 Taxmann.com 180 he submitted that the Hon ble High Court in the said decision has held that every condition (condition as to the completion before prescribed date) of the statute cannot be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... first week of May 2006. He submitted that since the PMC issued objection beyond the period of 21 days the Occupancy certificate is deemed to have been granted in terms of Rule 7.7 of Development Control Rule of Pune especially in the light of the fact that the assessee constructed building as per sanctioned plan. 6.3 He submitted that since the assessee submitted application on 4th April 2006 and PMC Communicated the objection to the assessee vide letter dated 26th April 2006 which was served on the Architect of the assessee on or about 4th or 5th May i.e. beyond a period of 21 days, therefore, according to Rule 7.7 of D. C. Rules, Pune the completion certificate is deemed to have been granted by PMC from the date of application especially in the light of the fact that the assessee had constructed building strictly in accordance with building plan approved by PMC and the local authority has not raised any objection as to violation of building plans. For this proposition he relied on the decision of the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Satish Bora and Associates Vs ACIT ITA No 713 714/PN/2010. 6.4 Referring to Page 11 of the Paper Book he submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... February 2008, i.e. before 31st March 2008. The assessee has complied with the condition of allotment on 27th February 2008. However, the ULC Act was repealed in the year 2009 and therefore, neither PMC nor ULC Department nor Secretariat to Mantralaya is responding to the assessee for issuing completion certificate. 7.1 He submitted that the assessee had done everything which was possible for it or was within its power. The assessee cannot be panelized for something which is beyond its ability. For this proposition he relied on the decision of ITAT Pune Bench in the case of Ramsukh Properties Vs DCIT Cir 2 Pune vide ITA No 84/PN/2011. 8. As regards commercial area included in project on Plot No.3 (Project A) he submitted that in project on the plot no 3 (Project A) the assessee had constructed shops admeasuring about 9472 Square Feet out of the aggregate built up area 1,16,433 square feet. The commercial built up area is 8.37% of the aggregate built up area. Referring to the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Brahma Associates 122 TTJ 433 (Pune) which has since been confirmed by Hon ble Bombay High Court reported in 333 ITR 289 (Bom.) he submitted t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Kulkarni Associates ITA No 17/PN/2009 (Pune) 9. The Ld. Departmental Representative on the other hand heavily relied on the decision of Hon ble CIT(A). He submitted that since the assessee failed to obtain the completion certificate, which is mandatory, before the specified date which in the instant case is 31-03-2008 and since the commercial/shopping area of the project is in excess of 5% or 2000 sq.ft. whichever is less, therefore, the assessee has violated the provisions of section 80IB(10) and, therefore, is not entitled to deduction u/s.80IB(10). The Ld. Departmental Representative also relied on the following decisions : 1. M/s. Sainath Estates (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT ITA Nos. 299- 300/Hyd/2012 order dated 08-02-2012 for A.Y. 2005-06/2006-07. 2. ITO Vs. M/s. Everest Home Construction (India) Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.7021/M/2008 order dated 12-09-2012 for A.Y. 2006-07. 10. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee in his rejoinder submitted that the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Tarnetar Corporation has held that every statute cannot be seen as mandatory and if substantial compliance thereof is established on record, in a given case, the court may take a view that minor de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... binding on all benches of ITAT till the time any contrary judgment of other High Court is delivered. For this proposition he relied on the decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Godavaridevi Saraf 113 ITR 589 (Bom). 12. On a pointed query raised by the Bench to explain as to why the plots of the assessee i.e. plot no. 3 and plot no.4 of survey no.20/2 were amalgamated with plot no. 26 to 32 and plot no. 48 to 55 of survey no. 19/1 + 20/1, Khondwa, Pune which were not belonging to the assessee, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew the attention of the Bench to the correspondence between PMC and the owner of the adjoining plot i.e. plot no. 26 to 32 and plot no, 48 to 55 of survey no, 19/1 +20/1, Khondwa, Pune. The correspondence was for the period from the year 1995 to 1999 concerning the unauthorized construction done by the said adjoining plot owner. It was further explained during assessment proceedings that the adjoining plot owner did not leave the side margin and front and back margin and therefore, the PMC proposed to demolish the construction on the adjoining plot. Therefore, there was issue regarding the boundaries of the plot of the assessee and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 4242.035 11644.24 12.2 He submitted that the plots even after amalgamation are maintaining their respective individual identity. The assessee further submitted that even after amalgamation of the plots the assessee s deduction cannot be disallowed on the legal ground also. The assessee submitted that there is a difference between the layout plan and building plan. The approval of housing project and approval of building plans are two different concepts. He submitted that a layout can have no of housing projects out of which there could be some projects eligible for deduction and other projects may not be eligible for deduction. For this proposition he relied on the decision of the ITAT, Bangalore Bench in the case of DCIT Vs. Brigade Enterprise (P) Ltd. reported in 119 TTJ 269 and the decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vandana Properties reported in 76 DTR 364 and the decision of ITAT Pune in case of Rahul Construction Co. Vs. ITO vide ITA No.1250/PN/2009. He accordingly submitted that the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 24 9 640 30/03/2010 04/04/2006 E-3 24 7 640 30/03/2010 04/04/2006 E-4 24 8 TOTAL 168 39 Project B -Plot No 4 Completion Certificate No Date Completion With reference to date Building No of flats SHOPS BCO/03/146 05/10/2005 05/10/2005 G (Gold) 101 0 BCO/03/146 05/10/2005 05/10/2005 H (Crown) 68 0 TOTAL 169 0 The completion certificate in respect of building I+K in respect of 80 flats is not granted so far by PMC although the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Revenue since a copy of the same was filed before the AO CIT(A) as certified in the Paper Book and not disputed by the Revenue. So far as the building I + K of Project B is concerned we find although the assessee has applied for the same on 04-04-2006, however, the same is pending before PMC for technical reasons. 14.5 We find the Pune Bench of ITAT in the case of Hindustan Samuha Awas Ltd. has observed as under : 9. From the above, one this is clear that the date that appear on the Architect s Completion Certificate filed before the local authority is a relevant one. In the instant case, the said date is 25-03-2008 and the assessee filed requisite form before the local authorities intimating the completion of the project. The said certificate/intimation was accepted by the local authority without any amendments or objections. Local authority has not raised any queries on the quality construction of the building or the completion of the same as per the plans approved by such authority. In such circumstances, in our opinion, the delay in obtaining the completion certificate on 10-10-2008 is certainly not attributable to the assessee and obtaining the said certificat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . It is equally true that explanation to clause (a) to section 80-IB(10) links the completion of the construction to the BU permission being granted by the local authority. However, not every condition of the statute can be seen as mandatory. If substantial compliance thereof is established on record, in a given case, the court may take the view that minor deviation thereof would not vitiate the very purpose for which deduction was being made available. 7. In the present case, the facts are peculiar. The assessee had not only completed the construction two years before the final date and had applied for BU permission. Such BU permission was not rejected on the ground that construction was not completed, but the some other technical ground. In that view of the matter, granting benefit of deduction cannot be held to be illegal 8. In the result, the Tax Appeal is dismissed. 14.8 From the details furnished by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee we find the assessee has allotted the built up area of 944.10 sq.mtrs against 942 sq. mtrs as per condition of sanction before 27-02-2008. Therefore, we find merit in the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the assessee ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d down u/s.80IB(10)(c) of the Act, has not been complied by assessee which is basic condition for allowability of deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the Act. We find that in case of Johar Hassan Zojwalla (supra), wherein condition of completion as laid down in section 80IB(10)(a) could not be complied with because of a stay being granted by MRTP Court. Thus fault of incompletion of construction was not attributable to assessee. In case such a contingency emerges which makes the compliance with provision impossible, then benefit bestowed on an assessee cannot be completely denied. Such liberal interpretation should be used in favour of assessee when he is incapacitated in completing project in time for the reasons beyond his control. In case before us, as stated on behalf of assessee, that assessee submitted certain modifications/rectifications for top floors of building. The said modification/rectification could not be completed as local authority could not approve the modification as their files have been taken over by concern intelligence department for investigation of violation of urban land ceiling Act applicable to land in question at relevant point of time. This fact has not been dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not submitted any revised plan to PMC. Although the assessee applied for completion certificate on 22-01-2004, the same was not received by the assessee before 31-03-2008. It is the case of the revenue that deduction u/s.80IB(10) cannot be availed of by the assessee since it has not constructed all the six buildings and 17 row houses for which permission was granted and completion certificate was not obtained before 31-03-2008. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the assessee that it has constructed Building Nos. A, C, D and E and 17 row houses and Building Nos. B F being not feasible was not constructed and the assessee has dropped the idea of construction of the same. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the assessee that it has applied for completion certificate on 22-01-2004 and since the PMC has a legal problem, which is subjudice, the PMC is not able to grant the completion certificate. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the assessee that Corporation has started levying municipal taxes, the flat owners have started paying electricity bills and the project on which Building Nos. A, C, D and E and 17 row houses are constructed are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ruction of buildings B and F is yet to be completed. Please give your comment? Ans. Yes, I agree that the construction of buildings B and F have not been carried out with a perfect understanding in the mind that we wanted to give up these two wings. In case these wings would have been constructed they would have been very shabby and been place for non-hygiene in the entire project. Looking at the merits and demerits these wings were not constructed. Further, building just one floor was economically unviable . 20. So far as the first objection of the revenue that completion certificate from PMC has not been obtained by the assessee before 31-03-2008 we find the assessee through his architect vide application dated 22-01-2004 has applied to PMC for occupancy certificate. (Page 119 of the Paper Book). The submission of the learned counsel for the assessee that the PMC has not yet rejected the said application till date could not be controverted by the Revenue. The further submission of the learned counsel for the assessee that all the flat owners/row house owners have been given possession between 26-10-2002 to 15-01-2007, i.e.prior to 31-03-2008 could not be controverted by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... speaking construction of flats in building 'E' was also complete and possession handed over to the actual user/customers prior to 31-3-2008. Pertinently, on the basis of the architect's certificate confirming completion of construction of building, the assessee applied for the completion certificate to the Pune Municipal Corporation on 12-3-2008. It has been pointed out before us that the local authority i.e. Pune Municipal Corporation did not raise any objection with regard to assessee's application and the certificate for building 'E' was thereafter issued on 5-5-2008. The moot question is as to whether in such a situation can it be said that the assessee's project did not comply with the condition prescribed in sub-clause (i) of clause (a) to section 80-IB(10) of the Act whereby the construction was to be completed on or before 31-3-2008. Somewhat similar situation was considered by our co-ordinate Bench in the case of Hindustan Samutha Awas Ltd. (supra) wherein also on the strength of architect's certificate, an application for obtaining completion certificate was moved to the local authority on 25-2-2008 but in actuality the completion certific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Tribunal is clearly applicable to the facts of the present case also. In the present case, the completion certificate was applied for before 31-3-2008 i.e. on 12-3-2008. It is undisputable that the application of the assessee has been approved by the local authority without raising any amendment or objection, as has been asserted by the assessee all along and the delayed issuance of the completion certificate by the local authority on 5-5-2008, albeit after the mandated date of 31-3-2008 cannot be attributed to the assessee. In this background of the matter, we therefore, find ample force in the plea of the assessee that denial of deduction u/s 80-IB(10) on such score is uncalled for. In conclusion therefore, in the instant factual background, we hold that the assessee has complied with the condition of completing the construction of the project within the mandated date of 31-3- 2008 even with regard to building 'E', following the parity of the reasoning lid down in the case of Hindustan Samutha Awas Ltd. (supra). . 14. Sub-clause (i) of clause (a) to section 80-IB(10) of the Act requires that the undertaking, developing and building a housing project completes s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ist April 2004 was required to complete the construction latest by 31st March 2008. Relying on explanation (ii) to clause (i), Revenue contends that since BU permission was granted after March 2008, the construction must be deemed to have been completed after such date. Explanation (ii) reads as under : (ii) the date of completion of construction of the housing project shall be taken to be the date on which the completion certificate in respect of such housing project is issued by the local authority. CIT (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal after detailed discussion came to the conclusion that such requirement was not mandatory in nature. In the present case, the assessee had completed the construction well before the last date, namely 31st March 2008 and had also sold several units which was completed and actually occupied, and it also applied for BU permission to the local authority. The local authority, however, for technical reasons, at one stage rejected such application in the year 2006 and thereafter upon revised efforts from the assessee granted the same by order dated 19th March 2009. We have perused the detailed discussion of the CIT(Appeals) as well as the Tribuna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd in this regard, the assessee has no control and it is beyond the power of the assessee to make the AMC issue the said Completion/Occupancy certificate before 31.3.2008. What was under the power and control of the assessee was only to move the AMC for completion certificate fulfilling all the requirements with the AMC for issuance of occupancy certificate, which the assessee has done in the present case. Thus, the delay in issuing the occupancy certificate cannot be attributed on the part of the assessee to deny the claimed deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the act on the basis that the project was not completed by 31-3-2008, especially when there is no objection raised by the AMC regarding deviation in the construction of the project approved by the AMC. 8. We have gone through the orders cited by the assessee s representative and find relevant paragraphs are required to be extracted for completion of the order. They are as follows. A. Extract from the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Satish Bora Associates vide ITA Nos. 713 714/pn/2010 19. . 1. In the case of PMC, the completion certificate in prescribed form issued by the licensed architect etc. who has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ject had to be completed on or before 31.03.2008 and since the assessee did not furnish the completion certificate, the assessee is not eligible for deduction. The objection is to the effect that the completion certificate from CMDA is dated 13.6.2008, i.e. three months after the due date for completing the project. In this connection, it has to be noted that the completion certificate is to be issued by the local authority. The question is, whether CMDA can be considered to be a local authority or not. This issue had come up before the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Jain Housing Constructions Ltd. in ITA No.1369/Mds/2009 dated 5.2.2010. In that case, assessee was denied deduction in the absence of completion certificate by the CMDA but completion certificate issued by the Corporation of Chennai was placed on record. The Tribunal in paragraph 3.5 of its order stated that the project layout plan may be required to be approved by the CMDA but as far as the construction of the building is concerned, the local authority, i.e. the Corporation of Chennai is the appropriate authority to regulate the construction as per the building bye-laws and sanction plans. When it is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1.4.2004 and also completed before 31.3.2008. During the course of assessment with regard to assessee s claim of deduction u/s 80IB in respect of its D.K.Honey Homes Project, the AO has asked the assessee to furnish the certificate of completion of this project M/s. D.K.Honey Homes. The AO also directly called information from the local authorities by issuing summons u/s.133(6) and a letter was issued by the competent authority dated 11th November, 2008, confirming that no completion certificate has been issued by this office. Accordingly, the assessee s claim for deduction u/s 80-IB was declined. Section 80IB clearly defines the date of completion as Date of completion of construction of the Housing Project shall be taken to be the date on which the completion certificate in respect of such housing project is issued by the Local Authorities , it means Local Authorities is competent to certify the date of completion of Housing Project. The date of issue of such letter by the Local authorities is not so crucial but it should have clearly mentioned the date of completion of project. When the Project is completed on 31.3.2008 and the assessee has informed regarding such completion, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the matter and the assessee has done his job scrupulously in this case. However, the local authority has neither objected to the said application of the assessee and the Architect by raising any objections nor accepted by issue of said completion certificate till 10.10.2008. Therefore, the delay in grant of the said certificate is certainly not attributable to the assessee. Therefore, in our opinion, the assessee is not defaulter on this account and thus, the AO has erred in denying the deduction u/s 80IA(10) of the Act. Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) has to be reversed. Thus, the grounds raised in the appeal are allowed. 20.4. In view of the above decisions we are of the considered opinion that since the assessee has done whatever possible on his part, i.e. duly applied to PMC for issue of completion certificate, handed over possession of the flats/row houses to the respective buyers, PMC has started levying municipal taxes and electricity bills paid by respective owners, therefore, deduction u/s.80IB(10) under the facts and circumstances of the case cannot be denied to the assessee for non-receipt of completion certificate from PMC before 31-03-2008 which was beyond the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... completion as laid down in section 80IB(10)(a) could not be complied with because of a stay being granted by MRTP Court. Thus fault of incompletion of construction was not attributable to assessee. In case such a contingency emerges which makes the compliance with provision impossible, then benefit bestowed on an assessee cannot be completely denied. Such liberal interpretation should be used in favour of assessee when he is incapacitated in completing project in time for the reasons beyond his control. In case before us, as stated on behalf of assessee, that assessee submitted certain modifications/rectifications for top floors of building. The said modification/rectification could not be completed as local authority could not approve the modification as their files have been taken over by concern intelligence department for investigation of violation of urban land ceiling Act applicable to land in question at relevant point of time. This fact has not been disputed on behalf of revenue. Thus, assessee was prevented by sufficient reasonable cause which compelled the impossibility on part of the assessee to have completion certificate in time. It is settled legal position that the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore 31-03-2008. So far as the second issue is concerned the assessee has duly applied for issue of completion of buildings I+K of Project B on 04-04-2006 and has handed over the flats to the customers, that they have undertaken for maintenance charges and have started paying electricity charges. The assessee has done everything possible on its part for issuance of completion certificate. Therefore, the assessee cannot be held responsible for non-issuance of completion certificate by PMC since the delay is not attributable to the assessee. 15. The third issue on which the Ld.CIT(A) upheld the disallowance u/s.80IB(10) is that the assessee had constructed shops admeasuring about 9472 sq.ft. out of the aggregate built up area of 1,16,433 sq.ft. and therefore the commercial area is 8.37% of the aggregate built up area and therefore is in excess of the prescribed limit u/s.80IB(10). We find, there is no dispute to the fact that the project, in the instant case, is approved on 11-01-1999 vide commencement certificate No.2117 for Plot No.3. Similarly, the PMC approved the first building plan in respect of Plot No.4 vide commencement certificate No.4410 dated 06-03-2000. Thus, the hous ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anandani Akruti JV Vs. DCIT reported in 39 SOT 498 where it has been held that law as it existed in the A.Y. 2004-05 when the assessee submitted its proposal for slum rehabilitation and the permission for carrying out the development was accorded on 17-11-2003 and when the assessee commenced the development is to be applied and accordingly it was held that the assessee was entitled to deduction u/s.80IB(10) for A.Y. 2006-07 15.3 The Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Opel Shelters Vs. ACIT vide ITA No.219/PN/2009 and D.S. Kulkarni and Associates vide ITA Nio.17/PN/2009 following the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case Hiranandani Akruti JV (Supra) has held that in those approved projects where construction has been started much earlier than 01- 04-2005, the assessees are required to complete the plan as it has been approved. 15.4 In view of the decision of Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Manan Corporation(Supra) it has to be held that the law as existed in the year when the assessee submitted its proposal and the permission is granted by the local authority and the assessee commences development is to be applied in determining its eligibi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
