TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 445X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... “C”, “D” and “E” of building comprising of stilt + 1st to 19th + (part) 20th upper floors and ground floor of this project. As regards to the withdrawal of claim for AY 2012-13, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that due to wrong impression, the assessee first withdrawn his claim and then revised the same claim before the AO by filing a revised return for AY 2012-2013 dated 03-03-2014 during the pendency of assessment proceedings. The learned counsel for the assessee informed that this claim is pending before CIT (A) for the AY 2012-13. In view of the above facts, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that the building was completed on 31-03-2013 and not otherwise, as alleged by the CIT (A) in his order. We find from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as under:- 1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB (10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for ₹ 1,72,53,670/- 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in stating that the appellant was unable to prove that the project was completed within the stipulated time limit i.e. till 31 st March 2013. 3. The appellant submits that during the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant was never asked to file or to produce completion / occupation certificate The appellant has obtained the Occupation Certificates for Towers A , B , C on 26 th February, 2013 and for Towers, D , , Club House Bank Premises on 4 th March, 2013. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e) The units so proposed to be constructed in the said project, is allotted only to the single individual and not than one unit is allotted to the same individual or to his spouse or his children or to his HUF. The Assessing Officer pointed out that in this project the assessee has sold flats to one family i.e. Shri Subash D. Yadav, Shri Desai U. Yadav and Smt. Neeta Anand Yadav and accordingly, the assessee is not eligible for claim of deduction in view of the conditions mentioned u/s 80IB (10) (e) and (f) of the Act. Accordingly, he disallowed claim of deduction u/s 80IB (10). Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before CIT (A), who allowed the claim of deduction on the issue of allotment of flats to the members of same fami ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd it to be an undisputed fact that the appellant was unable to prove that the project was completed by producing the Completion/Occupation Certificate at the time of assessment, and also thereafter within the stipulated time limit i.e. till 3-03-2013. During appellate proceedings also, the appellant has been unable to prove the compliance of this condition within the stipulated time limit. Therefore, on this ground, the appellant is not entitled to get deduction u/s 80IB (10). For this finding he also placed reliance on the withdrawal of claim by assessee u/s 80IB (10) for assessment year 2012-13. 4. We find that the Revenue is not appeal against the findings of CIT (A) that assessee has not allotted more than one residential ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... then revised the same claim before the AO by filing a revised return for AY 2012-2013 dated 03-03-2014 during the pendency of assessment proceedings. The learned counsel for the assessee informed that this claim is pending before CIT (A) for the AY 2012-13. In view of the above facts, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that the building was completed on 31-03-2013 and not otherwise, as alleged by the CIT (A) in his order. We find from the above facts that the project is completed and occupation in respect of all the blocks that is A , B , C , D and E are obtain within stipulated time limit of 31-03-2013 and there is no violation of any of the conditions mentioned in the provisions of Section 80IB (10) of the Act. Accordingly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
