Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 77 - AT - Income TaxDeduction u/s 80IB(10) on profit from sale of car parking space - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) following the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court the case of Purvankara Projects Limited [2011 (7) TMI 1352 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and of ITAT in case of Vaman Estate [2012 (10) TMI 1208 - ITAT MUMBAI] has held that the AO was not right in law-deduction u/s 80IB(I0) on income from sale of car Parking. It was also held that car parking space forms part and parcel of the housing project, without which even approval for housing project could not have been obtained from competent authority. Therefore, the decision of the Tribunal in holding that assessee is entitled to deduction u/s.80IB in respect of housing project inclusive of the amount received on account of car parking cannot be faulted. We do not deem it necessary to interfere in the said findings of the ld. CIT(A) and the issue is also decided in favour of the assessee - ground of revenue is dismissed Allowing deduction u/s.80IB(10) on the basis of inaccurate measurement of built up area of four flats - HELD THAT:- We direct the AO to verify the workings to be given by the assessee in terms of sq.ft to ensure whether the aforesaid four flats after excluding the terrace garden area fall within the limits of 1500 sq.ft. Respectfully following the aforesaid judgement and in view of the aforesaid directions, we deem it fit to remand this issue to the file of the AO to decide the same in the light of the aforesaid decision and in light of the aforesaid directions. Accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes for A.Y.2010-11. Not allowing claim of write off of sundry balances - HELD THAT:- AR merely made an oral submission that these advances were made in the course of business and the same had become irrecoverable which eventually lead to write off of the same by the assessee during the year. Apart from this oral submission, he could not substantiate his arguments by way of any evidences. Hence, we do not deem it fit to interfere in the order of the CIT(A) in this regard, accordingly, the ground No.2 raised by the assessee for the A.Y.2010-11 is dismissed.
|