TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 633X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Order of the Tribunal is confirmed, thereby rejecting the Revenue's appeals - In the result, Tax Case Appeals stand dismissed. No costs. - Tax Case Appeal Nos.1184 and 1185 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 2-11-2012 - MRS. CHITRA VENKATARAMAN AND MR. K. RAVICHANDRABAABU JJ. For appellant in both T.Cs.: Mr.N.V.Balaji Standing Counsel for Income Tax For respondent in both T.Cs.: Mr. R. Janakiraman JUDGMENT CHITRA VENKATARAMAN, J. The Revenue has preferred these appeals as against the order of the Tribunal relating to the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05, raising the following substantial question of law: " Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holdin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thority for issuing approval for the housing project. 4. Aggrieved by this, the assessee went on appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held that the provision under Section 80IB(10) nowhere permits an assessee to claim deduction on a proportionate basis and the entire project must contain houses of a built-up area less than 1500 sq.ft. Thus the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) rejected the assessee's claim for proportionate relief. He further pointed out that the assessee had purchased house sites as well as others had also purchased sites. The assessee had merely constructed individual house buildings. Hence, the assessee could not be held as having developed and constructe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficer. Thus, the Tribunal also referred to the decision of the Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal as well as to the Kolkata Bench in the case of Bengal Ambuja Housing Developments Ltd. Vs. CIT Cir.X., Kolkata in ITA No.1595/Kol/2005 dated 24.03.2006 in the case of the assessee for pro-rata deduction. 6. Thus, on the claim for deduction, the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to pro-rata deduction in respect of Units which have built-up area less than 1500 sq.ft. Thus, there could be no disallowance of the entire claim. Aggrieved by this, the Revenue has preferred these appeals before this Court. 7. As is evident from the substantial questions of law raised herein relating to the grant of relief on pro-rata ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
