TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (2) TMI 353
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2003 cannot be taken as commencement date for the housing project. 2. Whether the Ld CIT(A) was correct in holding that the housing project are held to have commencement only after amended approval by the local authority on 12/09/2005, when there are 7 such commencement certificates between 2003-2010. 3. Whether the Ld CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that Shri Rajiv Bhale already spent a sizable amount in preparation of plot and work commenced as per the layout plan dated 01/07/2003. 4. Whether the Ld CIT(A) was correct in allowing proportionate deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act for the houses whose area exceeded 1500 sq. ft. in respect of flat no H 701 & 704 as section does not speak about proportionate disallowance. 5. W....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ale proceeds of the said housing projects at Rs.1,64,25,71,071/- after claiming expenditure shown as profit of Rs.59,13,57,328/-. The same was claimed as deduction under the provisions of section 80IB(10) of the Act. The Factual background of the project is as under : One Mr. Rajeev Bhale of M/s Pratham Developers undertook the housing development project in Survey No.210/2 + 5, 211/2, Wakad, Pune on the area of land admeasuring more than 36 acres. He accordingly, applied for sanction of building plan which was approved by the Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation ('PCMC') by BP/Lay-out/Wakad/22/03 dated 01.07.2003. The said Mr. Rajeev Bhale had incurred some expenditure upto financial year 2005-06. The same was disclosed in the applicati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the Government Registered Valuer appointed by the Department. Accordingly, he concluded that the assessee is not entitled for deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. 6. Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, an appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A) contending inter-alia that the approval relied upon by the Assessing Officer dated 01.07.2003 is only layout approval and not a building plan approval. The project plan for construction of the housing project "Ruby" and "Emerald" was approved by the PCMC only on 12.09.2005. As regards, the allotment of more than one flat residential unit in the housing project to an individual, it is submitted that the allotment was done prior to the provisions of clause (f) came into existence. However....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onstruction of the housing projects, "Ruby" and "Emerald" were obtained only on 12.09.2005 ignoring the fact that the original approval was granted to the assessee on 01.07.2003. Taking us through the copies of the approval filed before us, he submits that that in every subsequent approval, a reference was made to the original sanction plan of building permission dated 01.07.2003 which clearly establishes that the commencement certificate and the original plan was obtained on 01.07.2003, which means the project is required to be completed on or before 31.03.2008, which is a sine qua non condition for availing deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. He further submitted that even the completion certificate dated 23.03.2010 also contains the build....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roject was approved on 01.07.2003, the photocopy of the image of the said layout plan is reproduced below :- 11. Thus, it is clear from the above that the housing plan was originally sanctioned on 01.07.2003 and, therefore, the housing project is required to be completed on or before 31.03.2008, whereas, in the present case the housing project could be completed only on 23.03.2010. Thus, the respondent-assessee had not satisfied the conditions precedent for availing the benefit of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. It is settled principle of law that exemption is available only on complying with certain conditions precedent under the respective Statute, those conditions have to be strictly complied with as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by us supra, the assessee had failed to prove that the permissions for construction of the housing project were obtained on 12.09.2005 for the first time except harping on that the permissions for obtain for the first time only on 12.09.2005. As observed by us in the foregoing paragraphs, even the permissions obtained on 12.09.2005 contained a reference to the original permission obtained on 01.07.2003, which clearly establishes that the approvals for building permission were obtained for first time only on 01.07.2003. The reliance placed by the ld. CIT(A) on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vandana Properties, 353 ITR 36 (Bombay) and the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Voor....