9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 895X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation of this court: "Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred on facts and in law in allowing the deduction of Rs.3,49,29,737 claimed under Section 80IB(10) of the Act without appreciating that there were separate approvals for each plots and therefore, the condition of approval of a housing project is not satisfied?" 3. Facts in brief indicate that the assessee had filed a return of income claiming deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Act at Rs.3,49,29,737/-. On a reassessment carried out under Section 147 of the Act, it was noticed that the assessee is not eligible for such deductions as it was not fulfilling the conditions laid down for claim of deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Act. It was the case of the assessee that it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovisions of Section 80-IB(10) of the Act when the 'housing project named 'Maninagar' at Rajkot was approved prior to 01/04/2004 and different units were constructed before 31/03/2008, it cannot be said that ITAT has committed any error granting deduction under Section 80-IB(10) of the Act with respect to only those units of 'housing project named 'Maninagar' approved prior to 01/04/2004 and of which constructions have been completed prior to 31/03/2008. It cannot be disputed that the 'housing project' named 'Maninagar' was already approved prior to 01/04/2004 with respect to different units. The 'housing project' was approved prior to 01/04/2004 and constructions that have been put up have be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntentions of the ld. counsel. The facts of the case in hand are similar to the facts considered by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High court (supra). As no distinguishing facts have been brought on record by the ld, DR nor any distinguishing decision has been cited by the ld. DR, we have already extracted the relevant part of the Hon'ble High Court's decision which has been followed by the first Appellate Authority. Therefore, we do not find any error or infirmity in the finding of the ld. CIT(A), we decline to interfere. 6.2.3 Considering the facts of the case which are identical to the A.Ys. 2008-09, 2010-11 and 2011- 12, I inclined to follow the decision given by my predecessor duly upheld by the Hon'ble ITAT, Rajkot bench ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
