9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 535X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been caused. Revenues case, on the other hand, relied on the twin correspondence(s) dated 27.2.2017 and 1.3.2017 regarding recovery of taxes and penalty proceedings as against the corresponding appeal(s) filed on 31.7.2018 and 1.11.2019 respectively. Learned CIT-DR's vehement contention before us is that the impugned delay has not been explained much less than of each and every day as per section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. 3. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and see no reason to express our agreement with the Revenue's stand. The assessee's twin condonation petition(s)/affidavit(s) have already attributed the reason of the impugned delay(s) to its tax consultant's resignation and communication gap at various levels. Hon'ble Apex Court's landmark decision of Collector of Land Acquisition vs. Mst Katiji & Ors on 19 February, 1987, AIR 1353/1987 SCR (2) 387 and University of Delhi vs. Union of India Civil Appeal Nos.9488- 9489/2019 dated 17.12.2019 settle the law that all technical aspects must make way for the cause of substantive justice provided the assessee offers cogent explanation regarding the delay in issue. We therefore, condone t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r interpretation to consider the benefit of the part of the project; 4. 11 Similar is the case with the condition that the housing project has 10 be completed within five years, i.e., before 31.03,20l3. In the instant case, housing project means the entire housing project as approved by the local authority and no/part or piece of the housing project. 4.12 When the statute is giving a benefit, it is for a purpose. The purpose the benefit of deduction uls.801B(1O) is to promote housing on-a large scale-a make po using available and affordable. But when the benefit is being given some conditions, it means that the statute demands some commitment from the assessee, that the stated purpose for which the benefit is given is realised at the earliest and this condition also acts as a protection 10 the flat purchasers as it ensures that the project on which benefit is being enjoyed by the assessee, is completed in time. 4.13 When there is no ambiguity in the provisions of statute it cannot be interpreted in a different manner to confer benefit on the assessee. For such proposition, reliance is placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court ill case of IPCA Laboratories Ltd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the specified time limit, the claim of the assessee that pro rata deduction may be allowed for flats having built up area less than 1500 sft; as allowed in various Tribunal Orders, is not tenable. "The object of the provisions of Section 80IB (10) is to augment affordable dwelling units. By having very significant number of flats exceeding 1500 sq ft, has the assesses succeeded to augment affordable dwelling units. The reply to this question has to be in the negative. Some limit has to be drawn lip to ensure that the basic character of the project continues to remain in harmony with the object of the tax Incentive i.e, augmenting affordable dwelling units. Further, it needs to be emphatically stated that pro rata deduction has to be ruled out because if that is permitted, some assesses may construct substantial number of flats exceeding 1500 sq ft. and may claim deduction without serving the purpose of the legislation. Likewise, the flats which exceed 1500 sqft. also have to be left of the purview of the deduction. In the present case, such deduction to be assessee will not serve the purpose of the legislation. 4.19 Similarly, the condition prescribed in Sec.80IB(10)(f) that in a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be considered for deduction u/s 80IB(10), the Housing Project that was given an approval on 04.02.2008 had to be completed by 31.03.2013. The date of completion would be taken to be [refer subclause (ii) of Explanation to Sec 80IB(10) the date on which the Completion Certificate in respect of such Housing Project is issued by the Local Authority. In this light, the certificate of completion obtained by the appellant with reference to the Housing Project was examined and if is seen that with respect to: (a) Block G, H, I, J, GHM.C had issued a partial occupancy certificate on 29,03.2012. Therefore. the construction of those blocks can be said to have been completed before the specified date. (b) Block F, K, L, the assessee submitted that the compliance was made as per requirements of GHMC and an application for occupancy certificate was made on 30.03.20/3 and partial occupancy certificate was issued on 07.10.2014. But the certificate dated 7.10.14 records that the building completion notice was submitted by the applicant (assessee) only on 16.09.2014. (c) Block A,D,E the assessee submitted that the compliance was made (IS per requirements of GHMC and an application for occupan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted that by virtue of the said Instruction, deduction of 100% on its profit is allowable on a year to year basis as profit has been shown on partial completion of the project every year. But the appellant has overlooked clause (b) of the said Instruction which has clearly stated that if it was found that the project was not completed within the specified time limit, then the deduction granted to the assessee in the earlier years should be withdrawn. As cited above, out of the 12 blocks, only 4 blocks have been held to be completed within the specified time period. Hence, the claim of the assessee that it should be allowed deduction on partial completion method would not hold glass to the fact that the project as on 31.03,2013 was incomplete and in keeping with the Instruction, the deduction already granted would anyway have to be disallowed. The deduction which was otherwise allowable on partial completion method is held to be not allowed in view of the fact that the condition of completing the project within the specified time limit was not satisfied. 07.2 It is also observed that for Blocks G, H, J, J, the Valuation Officer had mentioned that 20 flats exceeded the maximu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act. It also observed that in those blocks, the built up of some flats exceeded 1500sft. For that reason alone, the entire claim could not be rejected and the assessee was entitled for relief on a proportionate basis of flats that satisfied the condition of the nature stated under section 80IB(1 O)(,~ of the Aa: This, the Hon'ble High Court held that this was subject to the blocks satisfying the conditions u/s 80/B(10) of the Act. 07.3 In appellant's case, the facts of the case totally dissimilar. For all the 12 blocks in the Housing Project, a single approval and a single sanction was taken on 4.2.2008. It is not the appellant's case that each block in the project had its own specification and was given a separate approval. For a ratio of a decision to be applicable, the facts have to be identical. That not being so, the decision in the case of Madras High Court (supra) is not applicable and it is held that each block is not a "Housing Project " but instead block A to L form a single Housing Project. 08.0 This issue. Had also come in appeal for A.Y 2010-11 before the CIT(A)-6, Hyderabad and the CIT(A) vide order dated 15.09.2014 held that the project comprising of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sting of the project. In this regard, the relevant portion of the Act are reproduced below for ready reference; "Deduction in respect of profits and gains from certain industrial undertakings other than infrastructure development undertakings. (10) The amount of deduction in the case of an undertaking developing and building housing projects approved before the 31st day of March 2008 by a local authority shall he hundred per cent of the profits derived in the previous year relevant 10 any assessment year from such housing project if:- a) such undertaking has commenced or commences development and construction of the Housing Project on Or after the 1st day of October, 1998 and completes such construction,- (i) in a case where a housing project has been approved by the local authority before the 1st day of April, 2004, on or before the 31st day of March, 2008; (ii) in a case where a housing project has been or is approved by the local authority on or after the 1st day of April, 2004 but not later than the 31st day of March, 2005, within four years from the end of the financial year in which the housing projects approved by the local authority; (iii) in a case where a hous ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nation - For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply to any undertaking which executes the housing project as a works contract awarded by any person (including the Central or State Government). (Emphasis supplied) As seen from the Explanation (ii) to clause (a) of sub-section (10) of 80IB of the Act, it is clearly stated that the date of completion of the construction of the Housing Project shall be the date on which completion certificate has been issued by the local authority. 7.3 In the instant case, it is all admitted fact that the assessee has not completed construction of all the 12 Blocks forming part of the Housing Project namely, Manjeera Diamond Tower within the due date prescribed. 7.4 As seen from the facts of the case, the assessee has obtained plan approval from Greater Hyderabad Muncipal Corporation (GHMC) for the Housing Project Manjeera Diamond Tower on 04.02.2008. Accordingly, within 5 years from the end of the FY in which plan approval was granted i.e. 31.03.2013, the assessee should have completed the entire project. However, as per the documentary evidence furnished by the assessee from GHMC, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een completed within the due date i.e, 31.03.2013 as per-the-assessee's own admission. Though the assessee is not entitled to claim exemption u/s 80IB(1O) of the Act in respect of income derived from sale of houses falling under those blocks in as much as the built up area has exceeded the threshold limit of 1500 Sq. Ft., but at the same time, those two blocks are also forming part of the same Housing Project i.e, Manjeera Diamond Towers. As such, it is an undisputed fact that two of the blocks consisting of the project i.e, B and C have not been completed within the stipulated due date i.e. 31.03.2013. Accordingly, even after considering for argument's sake that F, K, L, A, D and E Blocks have been completed, since Block Band C have not been completed within the threshold limit of 31.03.2013, the assessee is not entitled to claim deduction in respect. of income from the Housing Project, even certain blocks have 'been completed within the due date. 7.7 In this regard, reliance is placed on the following decisions: i) Sainath Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2013/142 ITD 370 (Hon'ble ITAT Hyderabad): In this case, it is held by Hon'ble ITAT that obtaining Completi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate while claiming deduction under section 80-IB(10). In that event, the intent and purpose of enacting such a provision will not be fulfilled. Similarly the municipal assessment of the individual flat owners or sale of flats cannot be substitute for the completion certificate issued by the local authority. These facts does not conclusively prove that the entire project was complete in all respects. These documents certainly cannot be considered to be in compliance with the statutory provision [Para 13] Therefore, the assessee was not entitled to deduction under section 80- IB(10) as the completion certificate issued by the local authority certifying the completion of the project had not been submitted by it. [Para 14}" 2) CIT vs.Global Reality (2015) 397 ITR 107 ( Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh HC. In this case, the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court held that not only issue of completion certificate/Occupancy Certificate by the competent authority certifying the completion of the project within the stipulated due date, but also such certificate should have been issued before the stipulated due date. To be precise, even if the competent authority is certifying that the project ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te in order to claim deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that the assessee could obtain the Partial Completion Certificate-only in respect of G, H, J & J On or before the stipulated due date) but failed to obtain Completion Certificate/Occupancy Certificate in respect of all other blocks of the Project within the stipulated due date, Accordingly, the assessee is not eligible to claim deduction u/s. 80IB (10) of the Act as the basic requirement of completion of the entire project within the stipulate due date has not been fulfilled in this case. 7.8 . Even after considering partial completion would also entitle the assessee to claim deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act, then also the assessee is eligible to claim deduction in respect of income derived from G H, I & J blocks only. In the impugned AY, it is noticed that the assessee has disclosed loss from G Block of Rs, 1,08,06,974/-, I Block of' Rs. 63,16,467/-and there is no income from J Block at all. However, the assessee disclosed income from H Block amounting to Rs, 48,87,329/-. After adjusting the loss from G & J blocks against the income from H block, there won't be any inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as claimed by the appellant. 2. The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the spirit of the circular No.4/2009 dated 30.6.2009 issued by CBDT permitting allowance of deduction on a year to year basis on the profits from partial completion of the project. As the appellant followed percentage of completion method about which there is no dispute, the deduction should have been allowed since the appellant had produced necessary certificate for completion. 3. The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the provisions u/s.801B(10) being incentive provisions, a liberal interpretation of the provision will make the provision otiose instead of advancing the purpose of legislation in the light of this accepted principle enunciated the Apex Court. The learned CIT(A) ought to have allowed deduction in respect of completed blocks for which the claim was made for which necessary certificate was obtained from the municipality duly supported by other evidences. 4. The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the spirit of the above circular which has the effect of diluting the provisions of section 801B(10) to remove the hardship caused by strict implementation of the provisions ins ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed regarding the remaining 3 blocks. 5. In order to verify the allowability of assessee's claim during the relevant A.Y, AO made a reference to the District Valuation Officer of the Department to inspect the housing project and verify its eligibility for deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. The DVO, after inspection of the housing project, vide valuation report dated 22.03.2013, submitted a detailed report. As per the said report, the measurements of only 241 flats constructed at Manjeera Diamond Towers, Phase-I, were given by the assessee and the assessee had submitted that the occupancy certificate is yet to be obtained for F, K & L blocks and the application for issuance of completion certificate before the GHMC is yet to be filed. As regards the status of the project in March, 2013, the DVO reported that; i) 4 buildings are completed in respect of which occupancy certificate was obtained; ii) 3 buildings are stated to be completed but no efforts have been made to obtain the completion certificate from the local authority; and iii) the balance buildings are in skeleton shape or are yet to be started. Further, it was reported that, and out of the 241 flats completed, 20 flats ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considered as a housing project and since the assessee has completed seven blocks out of the whole project, the assessee is eligible for claiming deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act on the profits of these blocks on percentage completion method. He placed reliance upon the CBDT Instruction No.04/2009 dated 30.06.2009 wherein the Board has clarified that (a) the deduction can be claimed on a year to year basis, where the assessee is showing profit from partial completion of the project in every year; (b) in case it is late and found that the condition of completing the project within the specified time limit of 4 years as stated in section 80IB(10) has not been satisfied, the deduction granted to the assessee in the earlier A.Ys should be withdrawn. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel for the assessee, since the assessee has completed the construction of 4 buildings containing various residential units, each block also can be considered as a separate housing project and the assessee is eligible to claim the deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act on the profits from buildings ITA Nos 1704 1082 and 1230 Manjeera Projects Hyderabad. which are completed. For this proposition, he pl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd therefore, the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act on the income from these buildings too. In support of this contention, he placed reliance upon the following decisions: a) CIT vs. Hindustan Samuh Awas Ltd (2015) 377 ITR 150 (Bom.) b) M/s. Sriram Constructions, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Hyderabad in ITA No.1300/2001 & Others dated 29.4.2016. c) CIT vs. M/s. Ittina Properties (P) Ltd in ITA No.556 of 2013 & others dated 15.7.2014 of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court. 10. As regards the objection of the Revenue that some of the flats exceeded the area of 1500 sft, he submitted that the proportionate deduction is to be disallowed and not the entire claim of deduction. Thus, according to him, the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act for all the blocks completed by it. 11. As regards the interest income which has been claimed as a deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that these deposits were kept as margin money with the Banks for completion of the project and therefore, they are inextricably linked to the project and interest therefrom is also linked to the project and therefore, the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laim of the assessee that they were also completed in all respects and the application for issuance of completion certificate along with necessary enclosures such as Architect's Certificate etc., was filed on 30.03.2013. 16. From the facts and circumstances of the case before us, the question before us is whether the entire project is to be completed before 31.03.2013 or each block can be considered as an independent housing project and deduction u/s 80IB(10) can be allowed in respect of such completed blocks?. The assessee has received the approval for all the blocks as one housing project as is evident from the Municipal proceedings No.G/1272/BP/581/ 2007 dated 4.2.2008 (at page 2 of the paper book filed by the assessee) but the assessee has been able to complete only seven buildings out of the whole project. The CBDT instruction No.04/09 dated 30.06.2009 had clarified that the assessee can claim the deduction u/s 80IB(10) on a year to year basis when it is following percentage completion method and such a deduction so granted in each of the years can be withdrawn if the condition of the completing the project within the stipulated period is not fulfilled. 17. In the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statute and not directly on the provisions of section 80IB(10) of the act. 22. The provisions of section 80IB(10) as applicable to the relevant A.Y reads as under: "[80IB(10) The amount of deduction in the case of an undertaking developing and building housing projects approved before the 31st day of March, [2008] by a local authority shall be hundred per cent of the profits derived in the previous year relevant to any assessment year from such housing project if,-- (a) such undertaking has commenced or commences development and construction of the housing project on or after the 1st day of October, 1998 and completes such construction,-- (i) in a case where a housing project has been approved by the local authority before the 1st day of April, 2004, on or before the 31st day of March, 2008; (ii) in a case where a housing project has been, or, is approved by the local authority on or after the 1st day of April, 2004 [but not later than the 31st day of March, 2005], within four years from the end of the financial year in which the housing project is approved by the local authority; (iii) in a case where a housing project has been approved by the local authority on or aft ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply to any undertaking which executes the housing project as a works contract awarded by any person (including the Central or State Government)." 23. From a literal reading of the above provision, the relevant conditions to be fulfilled in the case before us are that the project (i) shall have been approved by the local authority; (ii) should be on a minimum area of one acre; (iii) each residential unit should not exceed the specified area; (iv) should have been completed within the stipulated period; and (v) the project shall be taken to be completed on the date on which the completion certificate is issued by the local authority. 24. As far as the 4 blocks are concerned, all the above, except condition No.(iv) are fulfilled and as far as 3 blocks are concerned, both the conditions (iv) and (v) are not fulfilled. In respect of some of the flats, there is a violation of condition No.(iii) as well. Therefore, it is to be examined, if the deduction is not to be allowed in toto even if one of the above condition is not fulfilled. 25. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vandana Properties reported in (2013) 355 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntitled to deduction u/s 80IB(10). 26. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Voora Property Developers (P) Ltd reported in (2015) 373 ITR 317 (Mad) was considering the case of an assessee, who received approval of the local authority in respect of a composite housing scheme and had obtained separate plan permits for six blocks on one acre and 6.5 cents of land. The AO therein had denied the deduction u/s 80IB(10) on the ground that the assessee had developed six separate projects in one single piece of land measuring 1.065 acres and therefore, the assessee did not fulfil the essential conditions of the minimum area of one acre for a single project as laid down u/s 80IB(10). The Hon'ble High Court held that if the conditions specified u/s 80IB are satisfied, then the deduction is allowable on the entire project and since the assessee constructed six blocks in a land measuring 1 acre and 6.5 cents, the assessee was entitled to deduction. 27. The Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Sriram Constructions vs. Dy.CIT in ITA No.1300/Hyd/2011 vide orders dated29.04.2016 has also considered similar situation and has held that the assessee will not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 80IB of the Act is hundred per cent of the profits derived in the previous year relevant to the assessment year from such housing project complying with the condition, each block in the larger project by name "Agrini" and "Vajra", has to be taken as an independent building and hence a housing project, for the purpose of considering a claim of deduction. Section 80IB(10) begins by stating: Thus the undertaking qualifying for deduction under Section 80IB of the Act is an "undertaking developing and building housing projects" and the deduction is in respect of "profits and gains derived from" such housing project, satisfying the conditions stipulated in the clause therein. Thus, within a composite housing project, where there are eligible and ineligible units, the assessee can claim deduction in respect of eligible units in the project and even within the block, the assessee is entitled to claim proportionate relief in the units satisfying the extent of the built-up area. 14. On the facts admitted by the Revenue, in the projects "Agrini" and "Vajra", there are number of flats which are below 1500 sq.ft., and the relevant built-up area requirement is specified under Section 80IB(10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... H, I & K and has also furnished the occupancy certificate dated 29.3.2012. Therefore, the assessee is clearly eligible for deduction u/s 80IB(10) on the profits earned from these buildings. 30. The next question to be considered is whether the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 80IB(10) on the profits from blocks F, K & L for which the assessee has not obtained the occupancy certificate from GHMC, Hyderabad as on 30.03.2013 but has already submitted an application for the same. It is seen that according to the Architects' certificate, the assessee has completed the construction in all aspects and that the assessee has submitted the application for issuance of occupancy certificate as on 30.3.2013 by paying the requisite fees. The learned Counsel for the assessee has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hindustan ITA Nos Samuh Awas Ltd reported in (2015) 377 ITR 150 (Bom.) wherein under similar circumstances, it was held that where the assessee has applied for the issuance of completion certificate by paying the fees within the specified time, the delay by the Municipal Corporation in issuance of certificate cannot be attribu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s regards the claim of interest income, as a deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act, the learned Counsel for the assessee has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Indo Aquatics Ltd reported in (2014) 369 ITR 589 (T&AP) wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that the interest earned on deposits for opening letters of credit is entitled to exemption and that it is an essential activity for undertaking exports as the deposit of amounts for that purpose is a condition precedent. In the case before us also, the assessee was required to keep the deposits as margin money with the Banks for completion of the project and hence is attributable to the project and the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 80IB(10) on such interest income. The AO is accordingly directed to allow the same. Ground of appeal No.6 is also allowed. 33. For these two appeals, the grounds raised by the assessee are the same as in A.Y 2010-11 except for the quantum. For the detailed reasons given above, these appeals are also allowed". 6. Mr Devdas's next argument is that since the learned coordinate bench has already considered the assessee's deducti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that all these Revenue's objections are presumed to have been raised and declined regarding the corresponding conditions enshrined in section 80IB(10) of the Act. We therefore, adopt the foregoing detailed discussion mutatis mutandis so far as the assessee's residential projects, except "A", "D" and "E" projects are concerned. The Revenue's arguments to this effect are rejected accordingly. The assessee's corresponding ground in the above housing projects stand accepted. 10. Next comes the assessee's remaining three housing projects i.e. A, D and E. Both the learned representatives are fair enough that the scheduled date of completion of these three projects also falls on 31.3.2018 only. Learned AR placed strong reliance on the tribunal's findings that it has already been held to be eligible as per Para 33 in A.Y 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively. We however, note that from a perusal of the departmental paper book (page 9 therein) that the assessee had filed for the corresponding building's completion notice on 4.7.2014 only i.e much after than the scheduled date of completion falling on 31.3.2014. Coming to the earned counsel's vehement contention that the very argument already s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In paragraph 578 at page 297 of Halsbury's Laws of England, Fourth Edition, the rule of per incuriam is stated as follows : "A decision is given per incuriam when the court has acted in ignorance of a previous decision of its own or of a court of coordinate jurisdiction which covered the case before it, in which case it must decided which case to follow; or when it has acted in ignorance of a House of Lords decision, in which case it must follow that decision; or when the decision is given in ignorance of the terms of a statute or rule having statutory force." 40. In Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court , the Supreme Court explained the expression "per incuriam" thus (at page 36 of 77 FJR) : "The Latin expression per incuriam means through inadvertence. A decision can be said generally to be given per incuriam when the Supreme Court has acted in ignorance of a pervious decision of its own or when a High Court has acted in ignorance of a decision of the Supreme Court." 42. As has been noticed above, a judgment can be said to be per incuriam if it is rendered in ignorance or forgetfulness of the provisions of a statu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction claim in view of the learned coordinate bench's findings dealing with the issue of deemed completion (Supra). We find no substance in the assessee's last argument as well since the Municipal Corporation herein has duly prescribed for the corresponding completion certificate procedure, step-wise, wherein the concerned applicant must ensure all the necessary compliance. We find that the assessee has not placed on record any corresponding clinching document to this effect as to whether it had filed the completion certificate in the prescribed format or not. We must also emphasize herein that the said prescribed proforma makes it mandatory for an applicant to submit "Building Completion Notice" which was submitted on 4.7.2014 only (supra). We thus adopt a different approach herein regarding the assessee's impugned sec 80IB(10) Explanation (i), (ii) deduction claim(s) pertaining to its "A", "D" and "E" housing projects. Learned lower authorities action rejecting the same stands upheld. 12. Lastly comes the issue of proportionate section 80IB(10) deduction claim. Learned coordinate bench has already upheld the assessee's claim in Para 31. We therefore direct the assessing authorit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
