TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 679X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esent appeals are filed against the orders dt.01-02-2011 of the CIT(A)- 39, Mumbai on the following Grounds of Appeal: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the Assessing Officer to allow proportionate deduction of 80IB(10) on flats which are having built up area of below 1000 sq. ft. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the conditions of 80IB(10) have not been fulfilled for the whole project/ building and cannot be approved in piecemeal for some flats in the building. The Appellant craves to leave to add, to amend and / or to alter any of the grounds of appeal, if need be. The appellant, therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore the FAA. After considering the submissions of the assessee and AO, FAA held that the appellant itself had constructed flats with built-up area more than 1,000 Sq. Ft., that with a purpose to claim the benefit u/s. 80IB(10) assessee had shown the single flat as several flats (two or three) and had shown each flat with built-up area less than 1,000 Sq. Ft., that Tribunal in various decisions had held that the assessee will not lose benefit u/s. 80IB(10) for whole project if a few of the flats were more than 1,000 Sq. Ft., He held that assessee was eligible for deduction 80IB(10) on proportional basis for the flats in which the built-up area was less than 1,000 Sq. Ft., He relied upon the order of the ITAT in the case of Sheth Deveopers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and gone through the material put before us. In the case of Jahangir HC Jahangir (ITA No. 2050/Mum/2009 AY 2005-06 we have, on 16-05-2012, decided the issue in favour of the assessee. In that case, we have relied upon the order of the Nagpur Bench in the case of AIR Developers [122 ITD125 (Nag)] and third Member decision in the case of Sanghvi Doshi Enterprises, Chennai Bench (131ITD151).We had also discussed the case of BAHDL, while deciding the issue. 6. After referring to these decisions, finally, it was held that assessee was entitled to proportionate allowance u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act. We do not see any reason to disagree with our earlier order.Upholding the order of the FAA, we reject the Grounds of Appeal filed by the AO. App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
