TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 245X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JM Aggrieved by the orders dated 04.02.2016 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)- 19, New Delhi (for short hereinafter called as the learned CIT(A) ) in Appeal No.20/13-14, for AY 2010-11 assessee preferred appeal ITA 2022/Del/2016 whereas challenging the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) in the order dt. 04.02.2016 in Appeal No 42/2014-15 both the assessee and the Revenue preferred ITA Nos 2023 and 2552/Del/2016. Facts and questions raised are similar, as such, all the appeals are disposed of by way of this common order. 2. Assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of real estate development. They had two projects namely Project Vista and Project Srishti. They have claimed deduction only in respect of Project Vista which is subdivided into five sub projects, namely, Project A and B, Project D and E, Project C (B1,B2,B3), Project F (B4,B5,B6,B7) and Vista Commercial. The assessee has been claiming deduction under section 80 IB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ( the Act ) in respect of the profits of Project A B and D E. 3. During the scrutiny assessment, Ld. AO disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0) of the Act, the assessee and the revenue preferred those appeals; and by way of common order dated 30/05/2016, a coordinate Bench of this Tribunal dealt with these aspects at length and disposed of the matters. Ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that the findings of the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal are applicable to the facts of these cases also. He further submitted that the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court confirmed the findings of the learned CIT(A) and the Tribunal in respect of the Project Completion Method of accountancy adopted by the assessee. Though the Ld. DR argued that in view of the decisions reported in (i) DCIT vs Ace Multi Axes Systems Ltd. (2017) 88 taxmann.com 69 (SC); (ii) Om Engineers Builders vs ITO (ITAT Pune) 109 ITD 235; (iii) ACIT vs Viswas Promoters (P) Ltd. (ITAT, Chennai) 126 ITD 263; and (iv) Histle Properties (P) Ltd. vs ACIT (ITAT, Mumbai) 134 ITD 6, the claim of the assessee is not tenable, the revenue does not dispute the submission advanced on behalf of the assessee that for the earlier assessment years the matter was dealt with by a coordinate Bench of this Tribunal and the issues involved are directly and substanti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as an independent building and hence is to be considered a housing project for the purpose of claiming deduction u/s 80IB(10). Para 32 of the order is relevant in the present appeal also and is being reproduced herein under for a ready reference:- 32. The argument of the Revenue, based on the statement of Chief Engineer, PCMC, in our view, does not h e l p the case of the Revenue as the following discussion would show. The case set up by the Revenue is that two projects have been sanctioned by a common approval and thus the PCMC has viewed the two projects as a single composite project. It is contended by the Revenue that the expression 'housing project', though not defined in s. 80-113(10) of the Act, should be taken to be the project per se, as approved by a 'local authority' for the purposes of s. 80-IB( 10) of the Act. No doubt, for a 'housing project' to be eligible for deduction under s. 80-IB (10) of the Act, it is required to be approved by a 'local authority', so however, the phraseology of s. 80-IB (10) of the Act does not reflect a legislative intent that the project should be 'as approved' by a 'local authority'. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purpose of s. under s. 80-IB( 10) of the Act in our opinion is misplaced. 35. Therefore, in view of the facts of the case as well as the judicial precedents discussed above, we dismiss ground no. 3 of the Department's appeal. Ground nos. 4 5 of the Department's appeal being general in nature are not being adjudicated upon and are dismissed. In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed. 9. On the aspect of the eligibility of the units exceeding 1000 Sq.ft. in area as per the report of the DVO, vide paragraph number 38, Tribunal remanded the issue to the file of the Ld. AO for adjudication with the following observations,- 38. The only issue remaining for adjudication after this is the claim of the assessee challenging the measurements of the DVO in respect of flats at Sl. no. 1 4 of the chart (Para 28 of this order). It is the assessee's contention that the correct measurement is 988.79 sq ft whereas the DVO has calculated the buildup area at 1029.28 sq. ft. It is also the assessee's plea that it had not been afforded a proper opportunity to explain the discrepancy before the Ld. CIT (A). Hence in the interest of justice, we dee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
