Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (1) TMI 1794 - AT - Income TaxDeduction u/s 80IB - Denial of deduction as house project had not been completed by 31/03/2012, thus violating the conditions provided in clause (a) to section 80IB(10) - CIT-A allowed the deduction - Non-completion of project, namely building “C” and therefore denying the deduction - HELD THAT:- We find that ld.CIT(A) has given a finding that “Building C” could not be completed because the required FSI for construction was not sanctioned / allowed by PMC and that no pending compliance remained on the part of the assessee. He has further noted that when the compliance of provision had become impossible on the part of the assessee the claim of deduction could not be denied and for which he placed reliance on the decision of Pune Tribunal in the case of M/s. Ramsukh Properties [2012 (12) TMI 360 - ITAT PUNE]. He had also relied on decision of Pune Tribunal in the case of ITO Vs. Satyanarayan Ramswaroop Agarwal [2014 (4) TMI 1132 - ITAT PUNE] and other decisions. He has further given a finding that the construction of the ‘Park Land’ which was sanctioned on 04.08.2006 was subsequently revised and has been totally completed before 31.03.2012 and in such a situation, the claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the assessee was allowable on a proportionate basis. Violation of provisions of the Act on account of the area of 5 Row Houses being in excess of 1500 Sq.Ft. - CIT-A has given a finding that Government Approved Valuer had taken the outer measurement of the Row Houses and calculated the area which is contrary to the definition contained in Sec.80IB(14)(a). He has further noticed that the Authorized Valuer had added the area of car porch, terrace above porch while measuring the area of Row Houses and if the terrace area is excluded from calculation of area, the total area of the units do not exceed 1500 Sq.Ft. For excluding the area of terrace, Ld. CIT(A) had relied on the decisions of M/s. Commonwealth Developers CD Fountain Head [2014 (4) TMI 122 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and the decision of CIT Vs. Mahalakshmi Housing [2012 (11) TMI 1121 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] and other Tribunal decisions. Before us Revenue has not placed any material on record to controvert the findings of ld. CIT(A) nor has placed any contrary binding decision in its support. In view of the aforesaid facts, we find no reason to interfere with the order of ld. CIT(A). Thus, the grounds of the Revenue are dismissed.
|