TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 675X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned counsel, the utilities space is shifted to separate plot and building E was conceptuated separately. We, therefore, allow the appeal filed by the assessee and direct the Assessing Officer to allow the claim u/s.80IB(10) to the assessee. - ITA No.1137/PN/2010 - - - Dated:- 4-3-2013 - SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appellant By: Shri V.L. Jain Respondent By: Shri Mukesh Verma ORDER PER R.S. PADVEKAR, JM:- This appeal is filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A)-II, Pune dated 09-07-2010 for the A.Y. 2007-08. The assessee has taken the following grounds in the appeal: 1. The learned Assessing Officer has erred on facts and in law in m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 -do- -do- 62 3184.35 07/05/2005 -do- -do- 84 4694.04 08/07/2005 -do- -do- 84 4665.99 27/09/2006 -do- -do- 90 4652.03 18/12/2006 8079.87 -do- 104 5434.26 30/03/2007 8079.87 -do- 127 6568.49 3. The Assessing Officer has observed that last rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s also noted that the part completion certificate only is dated 06-11-2007 and in the opinion of the Assessing Officer the Housing Project Bhansali Campus was not complete as on 31.03.2008. He therefore denied the entire deduction claim by the assessee u/s.80IB(10) of the Income-tax Act of ₹ 2,53,18,877/-. The assessee challenged the action of the Assessing Officer before the Ld.CIT(A). 4. The sum and substance of the pleadings of the assessee before the Ld.CIT(A) are as under: i. The first layout of the project was sanctioned on 15-09-2003 and the building plans were sanctioned on 22-12-2003. The buildings plan were revised on 08-07-2005 and 27-09-2006. As per the Commencement Certificate (CC) no. 2233/06 it would reveal that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ised approval dated 30.03.2007, and therefore it should be treated as a separate project is not found to be tenable in law. This is because the plan sanctioned on 30.03.2007 was in continuation of the original building plan approval/commencement certificate dated 22.12.2003. This 'Revised Plan' duly mentioned all the buildings A, B, C, D and E on the same plot of land, on the same survey number. The revised building plan approval given on 30.03.2007 for the same plot of land was merely a modification of the original building plan approval dated 22.12.2003. Further, once the layout plan and building plan has been revised in respect of a particular project, on the same plot of land, the earlier approved plan gets modified accordingly, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere were only 4 buildings. He submits that the Commencement Certificate (CC), dated 30-03-2007 (page no. 48 of the compilation) is relevant accordingly to consider building E which was added in the layout. He submits that building plan of building E has been sanctioned on 30-03-2007 and hence, it is a separate Housing Project. He placed heavy reliance on the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the Case of CIT Vs. Vandana Properties 206 Taxman 584 (Bom H.C.) and submits that merely because building E is included in the common layout it does not mean that building E is a part of one housing project. He submits that the assessee got some additional FSI and that was utilized in all the buildings including Building E . He submits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arately added. We find force in the argument of the learned counsel that nowhere it is provided in Section 80IB(10) that to be a separate project, the plan also should be separate. Ultimately the procedure of the plans for getting the sanction of the local authority is regulated under the different rules and regulations. In the case of Vandana Properties (Supra), it is held that Housing Project need not be a project of the group of buildings but one single building can constitute a separate Housing Project. Let us deal with the argument of Ld.DR that the additional FSI acquired was use by the assessee in all 4 buildings i.e. B,C,D, and E. In our opinion, there are no restrictions in the Income-tax Act on the assessee how to design his Housi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
