TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 1490X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) The learned CIT(A) erred in conforming the denial of the deductions of ₹ 7,08,34,948/- in respect of the project Harsh Paradise on the ground that the assessee had not completed the said project by 31st March, 2008. 2) The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that since the assessee had not completed the said project by 31st March, 2008 and also had not received the completion certificate from the local authority till the date, the assessee company was not entitled to claim the deduction u/s. 80IB (10). 3) The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee had completed the construction of the entire project including the four flats of building H - 4 and simply because the completion certificate of the four flats was n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to be handed over to the Pune Municipal Corporation i.e. PMC for allotment to the weaker-sections of the society. The project was approved by the local authority i.e. PMC whereby construction of the entire project consisting of H-1, H-2, H-3 and G building and four flats of H-4 building were sanctioned. The construction of four flats in H-4 building was to be carried out by the assessee after purchase of transferable development rights i.e. TDRs on account of lack of FSI in the hands of the assessee. In terms of section 80-IB (10) (a) (i) of the Act, the stipulated due date of completion of construction of the project was 31.03.2008. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee s project did not comply with the aforesaid condition ina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment year of 2008-09, similar disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer, which stood confirmed by the order of the then CIT(A) dated 05.09.2011. 6. In the immediately preceding assessment year of 2008-09 also assessee had claimed deduction u/s. 80-IB (10) of the Act in relation to the profit derived from the project Harsh Paradise and the same was denied under identical circumstances as noted above. At the time of hearing before us, the learned Representative for the assessee pointed out that the order of the CIT(A) for the preceding assessment year of 2008-09 was a subject-matter of consideration by the Tribunal vide ITA No. 1624/PN/2011 dated 22.03.2013 whereby the claim of the assessee was allowed. A copy of the said order has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l authority on 28.05.2003 wherein plan for construction of whole project including H-1, H-2, H-3 G building, and first floor of H-4 building was sanctioned. The assessee was planning to purchase further TDR for construction of remaining floors of H-4 building. As the project was sanctioned before 01.04.2004, the due date of completion of the project was 31.03.2008. It is undisputed that the assessee has received the completion certificate in respect of H-1, H-2, H-3 G building on 19.03.2008 and 06.03.2007. However, in respect of the building H-4, the assessee submitted that the TDR could not be purchased and, therefore, the building H-4 could not be completed and hence the completion certificate was not issued by the PMC for the H-4 bui ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dings H-1, H-2, H-3 and G as discussed above. There is also no dispute of area of the plot as laid down in provisions of section 80IB(10) of the Act, on which project took place. Only dispute is that building H-4 was not completed at relevant point of time so claim of assessee should not be disallowed as a whole. Whatever portion completed by assessee which satisfy the condition prescribed u/s.80IB(10) is eligible for deduction as held in Brigade Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 16. In case before us, assessee has received the completion certificate with regards to buildings H-1, H-2, H-3 and G as stated above. So assessee is entitled for claim of deduction u/s.80IB(10) in the stipulated time in respect of completed buildings of the pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... growth has to be interpreted liberally. At the same time restriction thereon has to be construed strictly so as to advance the object of provision and not to frustrate the same. The provisions of taxing statute should be construed harmoniously with the object of statute to effectuate legislative intention. This view is fortified by decision of Pune Tribunal in the case of Ramsukh Properties (supra), Rahul Construction Co. (supra), Satish Bohra Associates (supra). Accordingly, we hold that assessee is entitled to the claim of deduction u/s.80IB (10) in respect of all buildings except building H-4. The Assessing Officer is directed accordingly. 9. Following the aforesaid precedent, which has been rendered in the assessee s own case o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
