CIT v. Tarnetar Corporation

362 ITR 174High Court2014#3612 most cited

What is CIT v. Tarnetar Corporation authority for?

If there has been substantial compliance with the conditions for a deduction, minor deviations may not invalidate the deduction.

33

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Tarnetar Corporation · section 80ib(10) · section 80ib · substantial compliance · minor deviation · deduction

Also reported as

26 Taxmann.com 180

Issues it is cited on

section 80ib(10)section 80ibsection 80acsection 80asection 80isection 80iasection 80scrutiny assessmentsection 10reasonable causesection 139(1)section 143(2)

Judgments citing CIT v. Tarnetar Corporation

Abhilash Synergetic Constructions & Exports Private Limited, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 104/VIZ/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri C. Subrahmanyam, FCAFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik,Sr.DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 801BSection 801B(10)Section 80ISection 8O

…the decision of the ITAT, Kolkata Bench in the case of ACIT Vs. M/s.Ashiana Amar Developers in ITA No.1307/KOL/2015 dated 06/10/2017. He also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Tarnetar Corporation [(2014) 362 ITR 174 (Guj.)] and argued that the condition of statute can be seen as mandatory, if substantial compliance thereof is established on ITA Nos. 108 & 109/VIZ/2019 (Abhilash Synergetic Constructions & Exports Pvt. Ltd.) record. The ld.AR submitted that GVMC is not issuing certificates and since the assessee placed municipal tax assessments of flat owners,…

Income-Tax Officer vs. M/S. Pentagon Developers, Pune

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 393/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri V.L. JainFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha
Section 80I

…placed reliance on the following decisions : i. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. CHD Developers Ltd., 362 ITR 177 (Delhi); ii. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hindustan Samuh Awas Ltd., 377 ITR 150 (Bom); iii. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Tarnetar Corporation, 362 ITR 174 (Guj). 5. We have heard the submissions made by representatives of rival sides and have perused the orders of authorities below. The deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act has been disallowed to the assessee by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the assessee has failed to furnish completion certificate from the local authority i.e. PMC. It is…

Sh. Sham Sunder Sharma, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, Chandigarh

The appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 637/CHANDI/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. N.K. Saini, ITPFor Respondent: Smt. Chanderkanta, Sr.DR
Section 80Section 80I

…to grant him the occupation certificate. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has relied on the following case laws in this respect. i) CIT Vs. Hindustan Samuh Awas Ltd (2015) 92 CCH 0381 / 377 ITR 0150 (Bom.) ii) CIT Vs. Tarnetar Corporation reported in (2014) 362 ITR 174 (Guj.) (iii) ITO Vs. M/s Ambey Developer Pvt Ltd, Patiala ITA Nos 688/Chd/2014 & 852/Chd/2014 of ITAT, Chandigarh order dated 14.3.2016 20. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, has relied on the findings of the CIT(A) on this issue. 21. We have considered the rival submissions. As discussed above, the assessee had produced on file the copies of two l…

ITO WD 4(4), Thane vs. Hari Om Builders and Developers, Mumbai

ITA 3306/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2011 - 2012 Income Tax Officer Ward Hari Om Builders & Developers, 4(4), Thane (W) 1 Manohar Nagar, Opp Shiv बनाम/ Shakti Complex, Valiv, Vasai (E) Vs. Mumbai 401 208 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Abdfs3536P Co No.261/Mum/2017(Arising Out Of Ita No.3306/Mum/2016 Ay: 2011 - 2012 Hari Om Builders & Income Tax Officer Ward Developers, Mumbai 401 208 4(4),Thane (W) बनाम/ (Cross-Objector) (Respondent) Vs.

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 80I

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,‘ए’,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “A”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी. मंजूनाथ, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri JOGINDER SINGH, Judicial Member, and Shri G. MANJUNATHA, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2011 - 2012 Income Tax Officer Ward Hari Om Builders & Developers, 4(4), Thane (W) 1 Manohar Nagar, Opp Shiv बनाम/ Shakti Complex, Valiv, Vasai (E) Vs. Mumbai 401 208 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. ABDFS3536P CO No.261/Mum/2017(Arising out of ITA NO.3306/Mum/2016 AY: 2011 - 2012 Hari Om Builders & Income Tax Officer Ward D…

ACIT, Cir-33, Kolkata vs. M/S Ashiana Amar Developers, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1307/KOL/2015[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Oct 2017AY 2012-2013
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH ‘D’, KOLKATA [Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, AM & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, JM] I.T.A. No. 1307/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2012-13 ACIT, Circle-33, Kolkata.............................……………………………………………………Appellant 10B, Middleton Row, 3rd Floor, Kolkata – 700071. M/s. Ashiana Amar Developers……………….........................................................Respondent 5F, Everest, 46/C Chowringhee Road, Kolkata – 700 071 [PAN: AANFA5587H] Appearances by: Shri A.K. Tiwari, CIT DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Shri Pawan Kr. Agarwal, FCA appearing on behalf of the Ass…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 2006-07 is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1576/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2004-05 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Acit, Central Circle-20, Ansal Housing & Construction New Delhi. Ltd., Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri S. K. Jain, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 35DSection 80I

…was also satisfied in assessee’s case. He placed reliance on the following decisions for the proposition that if the completion certificate has been issued subsequently, the same would relate back to the actual date of completion :- • Tarnetar Corporation: 362 ITR 174/210 Taxman 206 (Guj. HC) • CIT v. Ittina Properties: ITA Nos. 556/2013/227 Taxman 236 (Mag.) [TS-461- HC-2014 (KAR HC)] • Sanghvi & Doshi Enterprise v. ITO: 141 TTJ I (Chennai 'A')(TM) [Confirmed by Madras High Court @ 255 CTR 156 (Mad.)] • Global Reality v. ITO (2002) 134 ITO 407 (Indore)(Trib.) • D. K. Construction vs. ITO, ITA No. 243/Ind/2010…

The ACIT., New Delhi vs. M/S. Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 2006-07 is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1254/DEL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2004-05 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Acit, Central Circle-20, Ansal Housing & Construction New Delhi. Ltd., Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri S. K. Jain, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 35DSection 80I

…was also satisfied in assessee’s case. He placed reliance on the following decisions for the proposition that if the completion certificate has been issued subsequently, the same would relate back to the actual date of completion :- • Tarnetar Corporation: 362 ITR 174/210 Taxman 206 (Guj. HC) • CIT v. Ittina Properties: ITA Nos. 556/2013/227 Taxman 236 (Mag.) [TS-461- HC-2014 (KAR HC)] • Sanghvi & Doshi Enterprise v. ITO: 141 TTJ I (Chennai 'A')(TM) [Confirmed by Madras High Court @ 255 CTR 156 (Mad.)] • Global Reality v. ITO (2002) 134 ITO 407 (Indore)(Trib.) • D. K. Construction vs. ITO, ITA No. 243/Ind/2010…

Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 2006-07 is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1248/DEL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2004-05 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Acit, Central Circle-20, Ansal Housing & Construction New Delhi. Ltd., Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri S. K. Jain, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 35DSection 80I

…was also satisfied in assessee’s case. He placed reliance on the following decisions for the proposition that if the completion certificate has been issued subsequently, the same would relate back to the actual date of completion :- • Tarnetar Corporation: 362 ITR 174/210 Taxman 206 (Guj. HC) • CIT v. Ittina Properties: ITA Nos. 556/2013/227 Taxman 236 (Mag.) [TS-461- HC-2014 (KAR HC)] • Sanghvi & Doshi Enterprise v. ITO: 141 TTJ I (Chennai 'A')(TM) [Confirmed by Madras High Court @ 255 CTR 156 (Mad.)] • Global Reality v. ITO (2002) 134 ITO 407 (Indore)(Trib.) • D. K. Construction vs. ITO, ITA No. 243/Ind/2010…

Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT CC-20, New Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 2006-07 is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3193/DEL/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2017AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2004-05 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Acit, Central Circle-20, Ansal Housing & Construction New Delhi. Ltd., Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri S. K. Jain, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 35DSection 80I

…was also satisfied in assessee’s case. He placed reliance on the following decisions for the proposition that if the completion certificate has been issued subsequently, the same would relate back to the actual date of completion :- • Tarnetar Corporation: 362 ITR 174/210 Taxman 206 (Guj. HC) • CIT v. Ittina Properties: ITA Nos. 556/2013/227 Taxman 236 (Mag.) [TS-461- HC-2014 (KAR HC)] • Sanghvi & Doshi Enterprise v. ITO: 141 TTJ I (Chennai 'A')(TM) [Confirmed by Madras High Court @ 255 CTR 156 (Mad.)] • Global Reality v. ITO (2002) 134 ITO 407 (Indore)(Trib.) • D. K. Construction vs. ITO, ITA No. 243/Ind/2010…

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Guru Pragya Infra (P) Ltd., Jaipur

ITA 417/JPR/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jan 2017AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Roshanta Meena (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 147Section 80I

…e construction of block H & I were complete before 31-03-2012. Any delay in issue of the completion certificate by JDA would, therefore, relate back to the date of application. For this reliance is placed on the following cases:- CIT Vs. Tarnetar Corporation 362 ITR 174 (Guj) (PB 30-31): In this case AO did not allow the assessee deduction under section 80-IB(10) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on development of a housing project on the grounds that the assessee did not complete the housing project within the statutory time frame. The Tribunal noted that the construction was completed in 2006. Application for D.C.…

Peshwa Construction, Mumbai vs. CIT 15, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3631/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3631/Mum/2014 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/S Peshwa Construction, बनाम/ Commissioner Of Income Tax,15, R.No.124, 1St Floor,Matru Mandir, 595, Narendra Villa, Vs. Dr.Ambedkar Road, Tardeo Road, Matunga (Cr), Mumbai-400007 Mumbai-400019 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) स्थायी ऱेखा सुं./ Pan : Aaifp6690H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Deepkant Prasad
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

…f the Commissioner setting aside the Assessment Order and directing the AO to make fresh assessment. In defence, the ld. AR relied on the following decisions: A) CIT V/s Hindustan Samuh Awas Ltd (2015) 377 ITR 150 (Bom); B) CIT V/s Tarnetar Corporation (2014) 362 ITR 174 (Guj); C) ITO V/s Saket Corporation (2015) 62 taxmann.com 38 (Guj) D) Siddhivinayak Kohinoor Venture V/s ACIT (2015) 67 SOT 284 (Pune- Trib) URO 11 ITA N o. 3 63 1 / Mum / 20 1 4 7. On the other hand, the ld. DR strongly opposed the arguments of the ld.AR and submitted that the assessment was rightly set aside by the Commissioner by exercising…

DCIT Cen Cir 1, Thane vs. Puranik Buildes P.Ltd, Thane

ITA 385/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita.S./385-386/Mum/2015, आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08,2008-09 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Dcit-Circle-2 M/S. Puranik Builders Pvt. Ltd. Room No.13, A-Wing, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Puranik-One, Kanchan Pushpa, Opp. Suraj Park,Wagle Indl Estate, Water Park, Next To Coral Square Vs. Thane-(W)-400 064 Building, Kavesar,Gb Road, Thane(W)-400615. Pan:Aabcp 0109 R Revenue By:Shri N. Sathya Moorthy -Dr Assessee By: None सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21.07.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 03.08.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) "" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- अनुसार राजे"" "" "" लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे लेखा लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे राजे Challenging The Orders,Dated 25/06/2014,Of The Cit(A)-I,Thane The Assessing Officers(Ao.S)Have Filed The Appeals For The Above-Mentioned Ay.S.Assessee- Company Is A Builder & Developer. The Details Of The Dates Of Filing Of Returns Of Income, Returned Incomes & Assessed Incomes,Etc. Can Be Summarised As Under: A.Y. Roi Filed On Returned Assessment Dt. Assessed Dt. Of Orders Income(Rs.) Income(Rs.) Of Cit(A) 2007-08 30.10.2007 57,95,050/- 28.03.2013 2,15,82,568/- 25.06.2014 2008-09 24.09.2008 15,69,349/- 28.03.2013 1,50,63,043/- 25.06.2014

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri N. Sathya Moorthy -DR
Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 80

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई मुंबई “सी सी” खंडपीठ खंडपीठ आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई सी सी खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“E”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"",लेखा सद"य एवं सी. एन. "साद,"याियक सद"य Before S/Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member and C.N. Prasad,Judicial Member आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ITA.s./385-386/Mum/2015, आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08,2008-09 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" DCIT-Circle-2 M/s. Puranik Builders Pvt. Ltd. Room No.13, A-Wing, 6th Floor, Ashar IT Puranik-One, Kanchan Pushpa, Opp. Suraj Park,Wagle Indl Estate,…

DCIT 3, Thane vs. Puranik Builders P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4612/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shjoginder Singh & Rajendraआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./4612/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Dcit, Range-3, Room No.2, B-Wing, M/S. Puranik Builders Pvt. Ltd. 6Th Floor Ashar It Park, Road No.16Z, M/S. Vmd & Co. Avms Premises, 4Th Floor, Shree Niwas House Wagle Estate,Thane. Vs. H.S. Marg,Mumbai-400 001. Pan:Aabcp 0109 R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ""या"ेप ""या"ेप ""या"ेप/C.O/.No.205/M/2014,Ay.2009-10, ""या"ेप M/S. Puranik Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Range-3 Thane. Mumbai-400 001. (Cross Objector) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Love Kumar-Dr Assessee By: Ms. Uma Mahadeokar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09.05.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 29.06.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- अनुसार Challenging The Order Dt.13.02.2013 Of Cit(A)-I,Mumbai, The Assessing Officer(A.O.)And The Assessee Have Filed The Present Appeal/Cross Objection (C.O.).During The Course Of Hearing Before Us, The Ar Of The Assessee Stated That Assessee Was Not Interested In Pressing The Grounds Raised In The Co,Considering The Smallness Of Tax Effect.Therefore,C.O. Filed By The Assessee,Stands Dismissed As Not Pressed.

For Appellant: Ms. Uma MahadeokarFor Respondent: Shri Love Kumar-DR
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 80I

…t suffer the consequence of disallowance or withdrawal of the benefit claimed by him on that count.” While deciding the case,the Hon’ble Court dissented from the judgments of Hon’ble Gujarat and Delhi High Court delivered in the cases of Tarnetar Corporation (362 ITR 174) and CHD Developers Ltd.(362 ITR 177) and has specifically held that amended provisions were applicable to the projects that were approved before 1.4.2005.Following the above mentioned latest judgment on the issue,we hold that assessee was not entitled to claim deduction u/s. 80IB in respect of building A-1, A-2, C-3, C-4,Club-house of KP.As far…