9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1678X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l No.78 of 2017. 2. This Appeal is filed by the Revenue to challenge the Judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('the Tribunal', for short). 3. The following questions are presented for our consideration. (a) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in allowing deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the assessee in respect of the Kores Towers project, without appreciating the fact that the commencement of the said project was in September, 1997 i.e. before the date of 01.10.1998 as stipulated in section 80IB(10)(a) and therefore as the said condition was not satisfied the said project was not eligible for deduction u/s 80IB(10)(a) ? (b) Whether on the facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tructed 4 residential buildings referred to as A1, A2, B1 and B2 for which commencement certificate was issued by the local authority on 19/06/1997. The construction was completed in the year 2002-2003. Thereafter, the Assessee, in the same plot of land, undertook the construction of another building called 'Devpriya'. The commencement certificate for such construction was issued on 24/12/2003. The deductions under Section 80IB(10) would require the commencement of a housing project after 01/10/1998. The Revenue contends that this construction of Devpriya complex was extension of the existing project and that, therefore, the commencement of construction must be treated as 19/06/1997 as in case of the original buildings. The Assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evpriya, the Tribunal noted that the construction of an additional complex in the existing plot of land was possible on account of additional FSI being available to the Assessee. As on 01/10/1998, such project was not even conceived. Admitted facts are that commencement certificate for construction of Devpriya was issued by the local authorities long after 01/10/1998. 9. Similarly, in relation to Kores Nakshatra, the established facts are that the project was constructed on a piece of land where previously a factory was situated. Permission to close the factory was granted in the year 2003. Couple of years later, building plans were approved and commencement certificate was issued. 10. We find no error in the view of the Tribunal. Both th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roneous. At the relevant time when the housing project was constructed and residential units were sold, admittedly that was no condition in Section 80IB(10) of the Act restricting allotment of more than one unit to the members of the same family. The Assessee, therefore, was free to allot more than one unit to members of the same family. The material on record would suggest that after such units were sold under different agreements, the allottees desired that the partition wall between the two units be removed. It was thus the decision of the members to remove the wall. It was not the case where the Assessee had, from the beginning, combined two residential units and allotted one such larger unit to one member. 13. In the result, we do not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
