9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1877X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reby granting partial relief to the assessee, as against the order of the Ld.AO who had denied the benefit of deduction U/s.80IB of the Act. 3. Revenue's Appeal: The Revenue has raised several grounds in its appeal however the crux of the issue is that the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in granting deduction U/s.80IB of the Act for the two blocks. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of construction and development of residential properties, filed its return of income for the assessment year 2012-13 on 27.09.2012 declaring total income of Rs. 26,04,89,191/-. Initially the return was processed U/s.143(1) of the Act on 17.05.2013. Subsequently the case was selected for scrutiny and finally assessment was completed U/s.143(3) of the Act on 27.03.2015 wherein the Ld.AO disallowed the claim of deduction U/s.80IB(10) of the Act amounting to Rs. 10,63,63,214/-. 5. The assessee had undertaken to construct 372 residential apartments consisting of 5 blocks in Selaiyur Village, Chennai. The project is on a land which extends to 3.46 acres and the block No.1 & 2 is developed on a land extending to 1.65 acres. The first planning perm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant was given completion certificate only for 2 blocks during the F.Y. relevant to the A.Y. even though application was made for all the blocks. It is further stated that the project has been launched on a land admeasuring 3.46 acres. It is vehemently argued that appellant has fulfilled all the conditions laid down u/s 80IB(10). Therefore, deduction as claimed by the appellant should have been allowed. On consideration of facts and in law, I am inclined to agree with the Ld. AR. There is no such provision to prevent the appellant to claim deduction u/s 80IB(10) depending on completion of the project. In the appellant's case, it has completed 2 blocks and obtained completion certificate on the basis of which the appellant has claimed deduction u/s 80IB(10). In my considered opinion, the appellant has fulfilled the conditions laid down is u/s 80IB(10) and eligible for deduction u/s 801B(10). (b) The next ground considered by the AO for disallowance with regard to details of size of the land, AO has stated that appellant has not filed details with regard to the size of the land. In this regard, the AO has submitted a remand report in which no comment has been made on this is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nner measurements of the residential unit at the floor level, including the projections and balconies, as increased by the thickness of the walls, meaning thereby, the actual residential portion of the property. It clearly states that it will not include common areas shared with other residential units. Thus, there was no justification in including the car park in the definition of the built-up area of the residential unit for the purpose of determining the maximum built-up area. In this regard, Id. AR has filed sale-cum-construction agreement for verification. Clause (2) of the said agreement says as under: 5. The Purchaser(s) has requested the Builders to construct for the Purchaser(s} a Flat for an area of about 979 sq.ft. approximately in the proposed building to be put up in the SCHEDULE "A" property, the said flat being more clearly described in SCHEDULE "D" hereunder and have entered into a work contract for constructing the above structure for a value of Rs. 29,96,300/ - (Rupees Twenty Nine Lacs Ninety Six. Thousand Three Hundred Only). The agreement clearly shows that the area of flat constructed does not talk about the carpet area or built-up area, etc. In view of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n examining the materials on record the Ld.CIT(A) has arrived at the conclusion that in the case of the assessee all the residential units are within the permissible limit of 1500 per sq.ft., after excluding the common area and therefore eligible for deduction U/s.80IB(10) of the Act. Since the assessee had complied with all the conditions stipulated U/s.80IB(10) of the Act, the Ld.CIT(A) granted deduction for the 2 blocks of the constructed residential units. In this situation, we do not find it necessary to interfere with the order of the Ld.CIT(A) who has arrived at such decision after examining the materials produced before him. 11.3 Accordingly we hereby sustain the order of the Ld.CIT(A) for granting deduction U/s.80IB(10) of the Act to the assessee with respect to the 2 blocks of constructed residential units. Hence the Revenue's appeal is devoid of merits. 12. With respect to the issue of additional ground raised by the assessee which was rejected by the Ld.CIT(A), the Ld.AR argued before us stating that the decision in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd., is only with reference to the power of the Assessing Officer and does not restrict the power of the Tribunal to admit add ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
