TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 70X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , thus those were two independent projects though the land was the same i.e. project utilising the original FSI and project by purchasing by obtaining TDR - admittedly, the first phase itself is a separate “project” and the assessee completed the building shown in the first phase within four years from the financial year in which the commencement certificate was issued i.e. in F.Y. 2004-05 and as the plot of land is common for both the phases, hence, as per their regulations the Municipal authorities have issued part completion certificate - in favour of assessee. - ITA No.6758/Mum/2010 - - - Dated:- 31-5-2012 - SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, JJ. Appellant revenue by: Shri D.S. Sundar Singh Respondent-Cross objector ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rity. The assessee accordingly filed the required documents i.e. Commencement certificate, which was dated 14.12.2004. The assessee also filed the Completion certificates as per the details given below: Date of Certificate Building No. Description 11.06.2007 A-1 A-2 A-3 18 Gala and 76 Rooms 18 Gala and 76 Rooms 18 Gala and 76 Rooms 01.10.2007 B-1, B-2, B-3 60 Gala and 195 Rooms 25.03.2009 A-4 A-5 A-6 60 Gala and 195 Rooms 60 Gala and 195 Rooms 60 Gala and 195 Rooms 26.03.2009 C-4 13 Gala and 50 Rooms 4. The A.O. observed that on the perusal of the documents, the assessee s project was commenced on 14.12.2004 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee challenged the denial of the deduction before the Ld. CIT (A) and Ld. CIT (A) allowed the claim of the assessee. The Ld. CIT (A) has observed that the assessee originally obtained the Commencement Certificate on 14.12.2004 to construct 19,328.40 sq. mtrs. of FSI. The said approval / commencement certificate was for the construction of buildings i.e. A-1 to A-6, B-1 to B-3 and C-4. The assessee purchased TDR and got the plan modified vide new commencement certificate dated 30.03.2007 for additional construction of 12,166.09 sq. mtrs. and the said approval was given for construction of four buildings i.e. C-1 to C-3 and D. In the opinion of the Ld. CIT (A) those were two independent projects though the land was the same i.e. projec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uction in the second phase given by the assessee which, is approved on 30.03.2007. It is true that in the second plan the buildings shown in the first plant are appearing but in original plan said buildings are not appearing. The argument of the Ld. Counsel is that the as the plot is common, hence, the assessee has shown the buildings appearing in the first plant also. Admittedly, when the first plan was approved by the local authority, at that time, the assessee has consumed 97% of the FSI and there was no balance FSI, which the assessee could commercially exploit. Subsequently, the assessee obtained the TDR and utilised portion of the land on which otherwise as per the existing regulations it was not permissible to have any construction a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
