ITO 24(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. NEETA ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6002/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 September 2016AY 2011-123 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the housing project's commencement date was not before the eligible date and that the completion certificate was obtained on time for the project, considering the phased completion of its buildings.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order allowing deduction under Section 80IB(10). The grounds of appeal concerned the commencement date of the housing project and the obtaining of a completion certificate before the stipulated due date.

What were the issues?

Whether the housing project commenced before the eligible date for deduction and whether a valid completion certificate was obtained within the prescribed time limit.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80IB(10)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO & SHRI RAVISH SOOD

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya
For Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, CIT-DR
Hearing: 21.09.2016Pronounced: 23.09.2016

सुनवाई की तायीख / Date of Hearing : 21.09.2016 घोषणा की तायीख /Date of Pronouncement : 23.09.2016 आदेश / O R D E R

PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM:

1.

This appeal filed by the Revenue on 26.9.2014 is against the order of the CIT (A)-34, Mumbai dated 17.7.2014 for the assessment year 2011-2012. In this appeal, assessee raised the following grounds which read as under:- “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) erred in allowing deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act ignoring the fact that the approval of the local authority was obtained on 28.11.1992, ie much before 1.10.1998, the date on or after which the project approved were eligible for deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act.

2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) erred in allowing deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act ignoring the fact that it has not obtained completion certificate from local authority before 31.3.2008 which is mandatory as per Explanation (ii) to section 80IB(10) of the Act.”

2. Before us, in connection with Ground no.1, Ld Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue raised in this appeal relates to the “commencement” of the housing project for the purpose of section 80IB(10) of the Act. Stating that this issue stands covered in favour of the assessee in assessee‟s own case by virtue of the order of the Tribunal for the earlier assessment years, Ld Counsel for the assessee filed a copy of the order of the Tribunal in (2006-07) and others, dated 4.6.2014. He read out the relevant paras 18 and 19 of the said Tribunal‟s order.

3.

After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the cited order of the Tribunal in assessee‟s own case (supra), we find, the following lines are relevant for adjudication of Ground no.1 and the same read as under:- “19. ............ Therefore, we find no infirmity in the finding recorded by the Ld CIT

(A) that the AO was wrong in holding that the housing project of the assessee had commenced before 1.10.1998. We uphold his order. Since, the facts and circumstances in all the three cases are identical, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed.” 4. The above finding of the Tribunal if read along with the finding of the CIT (A) in his order vide the contents of para 2.4 on page 14, the decision taken by the CIT (A) is fair and reasonable and the issue raised by the Revenue in Ground no.1 is required to be dismissed. We order accordingly. Thus, Ground no.1 raised by the Revenue is dismissed.

5.

Regarding Ground no.2 relating to the date of completion of the project, also it is the contention of the Ld Counsel for the assessee that the same stands covered and the CIT (A)‟s decision given in para 3.4 of his order at page 32 is relevant in this regard. It is the finding of the CIT (A) that the project in question was approved prior to the amendment and therefore, the provisions relating to the „due date‟ fixed in the Statute are inapplicable. However, notwithstanding the same, it is the argument of the Ld Counsel for the assessee that the housing project consists of „seven‟ buildings (A to G) and the buildings „A, B and C‟ were completed on 18.2.2006; buildings „D, E and F‟ were completed on 3.2.2007 and finally, the building „G‟ was completed on 29.3.2008 ie on or before the due date of 31.3.2008. In this regard, he brought our attention to the copies of the completion certificates enclosed to the note provided by the Ld AR dated 7.9.2016.

6.

On perusal of the above facts as well as the relevant material placed before us and after hearing both the parties, we find, the decision given by the CIT (A) vide para 3.4 of his order is fair and reasonable and therefore, it does not call for any interference. Accordingly, Ground no.2 raised by the Revenue is dismissed.

More judgments on Section 80IB(10)

All 838 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80IB(10) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →