Dy. CIT, Central Circle 1(2), Pune V. M/s. Kasturi Housing Pvt. Ltd., Pune

ITA 1073/PUN/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 84933 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 14-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K MODI
• Assessee Lawyers: V L JAIN
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 80IB; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS.1073 TO 1076/PN/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2003-04 TO 2006-07) DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), PUNE. . APPELLANT VS. M/S KASTURI HOUSING PVT. LTD., 842, BUDHWAR PETH, LAXMI ROAD, PUNE 411 002. PAN : AABCK08478Q . RESPONDENT DEPARTMENT BY : MR. A. K. MODI ASSESSEE BY : MR. V. L. JAIN DATE OF HEARING : 14-08-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28-08-2014 ORDER PER G. S. PANNU, AM THE CAPTIONED FOUR APPEALS BY THE REVENUE RELATE TO THE SAME ASSESSEE FOR DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS AND INVOLVE A COMMON ISSUE THEREFORE, THEY HAVE BEEN CLUBBED AND HEARD AND TOG ETHER AND A CONSOLIDATED ORDER IS BEING PASSED FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE A ND BREVITY. 2. ALL THE CAPTIONED APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST A COMMON ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-CENTRAL, PUNE DATED 28.02.2013 WHICH, IN TURN, HAS ARISEN FROM AN ORDER DATED 31.1 2.2009 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 153A R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE INC OME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003- 04, 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07 RESPECTIVELY. 3. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE, WHI CH ARE IDENTICAL FOR ALL THE FOUR ASSESSMENT YEARS, READ AS UNDER :- ITA NOS.1073 TO 1076/PN/2013 A. YS. : 2003-04 TO 2006-07 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE L D. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S 80IB (10) OF TH E IT ACT, 1961 IN RESPECT OF ASSESSEE'S PROJECT 'LA-VIDA-LOCA' IGNORING THE F ACT THAT THE ENTIRE HOUSING PROJECT FOR WHICH LAYOUT WAS SANCTIONED BEF ORE 01/04/2004 WAS NOT COMPLETED AS ON 31/03/2008 AS NOTED BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY PROCEEDING. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE TH E LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE IT ACT, 1961 IN RESPECT OF ASSESSEE'S PROJECT 'LA-VIDA-LOCA' IGNOR ING THE FACT THAT THE BUILT-UP AREA OF FEW MERGED FLATS SOLD BY THE ASSES SEE WAS EXCEEDING 1500 SQ. FT. AS NOTED BY THE AO AT THE TIME OF SURVEY. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE TH E LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE IT ACT, 1961 IN RESPECT OF ASSESSEE'S PROJECT 'LA-VIDA-LOCA' IGNORI NG THE FACT THAT THE COMMERCIAL AREA IN THE PROJECT WAS IN EXCESS OF 200 0 SQ.FT. AS NOTED BY THE A.O. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY PROCEEDINGS. 4. SUBSTANTIVELY SPEAKING, THE SOLITARY GRIEVANCE O F THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HOLDING THAT THE PROFITS AN D GAINS DERIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM EXECUTION OF HOUSING PROJECT LA-VIDA -LOCA, ARE ELIGIBLE FOR THE BENEFITS OF SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. 5. THE PERTINENT FACTS LEADING UP TO THE PRESENT PR OCEEDINGS CAN BE SUMMARIZED AS FOLLOWS. THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENTS HA VE BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 153A OF THE ACT R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE ACT AS A CONSEQUENCE OF A SEARCH ACTION U/S 132 OF THE ACT C ONDUCTED IN THE PRIDE PURPLE GROUP OF CASES, TO WHICH THE APPELLANT COMPA NY ALSO BELONGS, ON 11.01.2008. QUA THE IMPUGNED DISPUTE RELATING TO S ECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT, IT WOULD SUFFICE TO OBSERVE THAT IN THE IMPUGNED AS SESSMENTS THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB( 10) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF ASSESSEES PROJECT LA-VIDA-LOCA, PIMPALE SAUDAGAR , PUNE. WE MAY ADVERT TO THE DISCUSSION CONTAINED IN THE ORDERS OF THE LO WER AUTHORITIES FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 IN ORDER TO APPRECIATE THE CONTROVERSY. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04, ASSESSEE HAD MADE A CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT TO THE TUNE OF RS.35,41,341/-. THE PROJECT CONSISTED OF 7 RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (A, B, C, D, E, F & G) AND ON E COMMERCIAL-CUM- RESIDENTIAL BUILDING H WHICH WAS STILL UNDER CONSTR UCTION. THE ASSESSING ITA NOS.1073 TO 1076/PN/2013 A. YS. : 2003-04 TO 2006-07 OFFICER FURTHER NOTED THAT IN THE COURSE OF REGULAR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT FINALIZED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 THE THEN ASSESSING OFFI CER HAD MADE ENQUIRIES WITH RESPECT TO ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) AS WAS MADE IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME FILED. IN THE COURSE OF REGULAR ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION U /S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS DENIED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FURTHER NOTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAD ALSO CONFIRMED SUCH ACTION OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER. FOR THE SAID REASONS AND ADOPTING THE OBJECTIONS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE CARRYING OUT REGULAR ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS F OR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005- 06, IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ALSO, THE CLAIM OF D EDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN DENIED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FUR THER NOTED THAT AT THE TIME OF COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT, ASSESSEES APPEAL AGAI NST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DATED 05.08.2008 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 IN REGULAR ASSESSMENT WAS ALSO PENDING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6. THE OBJECTIONS WHICH PREVAILED WITH THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER TO DENY THE CLAIM WERE THAT (I) MANY OF THE FLATS HAD BUILT-UP AREA IN EXCESS OF 1500 SQ.FT.; (II) COMMERCIAL AREA SOLD WAS IN EXCESS OF 2000 SQ. FT.; (III) SOME OF THE FLATS WERE FOUND TO BE MERGED AND THE COMBINED FLATS HAD AREA IN EXCESS OF 1500 SQ.FT.; AND, (IV) THE PROJECT WAS APPROVED BY THE L OCAL AUTHORITY ON 01.04.2004 AND THEREFORE, ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO COMPLETE TH E PROJECT ON OR BEFORE 31.03.2008, BUT IT WAS FOUND DURING THE SURVEY THAT (A) IN RESPECT OF BUILDINGS 'F' AND 'G', THOUGH THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATES HAD BEEN APPLIED FOR, BUT THE SAME WERE YET TO BE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE; AND, (B) BUILDING 'H' WAS STILL INCOMPLETE. IN VIEW OF THESE FINDINGS, THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER NOTED, THAT DEDUCTION UNDER THE SAID PROVISION HAD BEEN DENIED TO THE APPELLANT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. SINCE THE SAME FACTS PREV AILED IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE THEN ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 5-06, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT UNDER SEC TION 153A R.W.S. L43(3) ITA NOS.1073 TO 1076/PN/2013 A. YS. : 2003-04 TO 2006-07 OF THE ACT ON 31.12.2009 WITHOUT ALLOWING THE DEDUC TION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. 7. WHEN ASSESSEE CARRIED THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), IT RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.1231/PN/2008 AND 1382/PN/2010 DATED 30.10.2012 WHICH AROSE OUT OF TH E REGULAR ASSESSMENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 FRAMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 31.1 0.2012 (SUPRA) AND THEREAFTER SHE HAS DISCUSSED EACH OF THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. AGAINST SUCH AN ORDER OF THE CIT(A), REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 8. BEFORE US, IT WAS A COMMON POINT BETWEEN THE PAR TIES THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) GRANTING THE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT IS IN TERMS OF DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL CONTAINED IN IT S ORDER DATED 31.10.2012 (SUPRA). AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LEARNED REPRE SENTATIVE FOR THE RESPONDENT- ASSESSEE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT SUBSEQUENT TO THE OR DER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 31.10.2012 (SUPRA) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS, IN THE ORDER GIVING APPEAL EFFECT ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. IN THIS CONTEXT, HE HAS FURNI SHED AN ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 28.03.2014 U/S 143(3) R.W.S . 254 OF THE ACT GIVING APPEAL EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 31 .10.2012 (SUPRA). IN THIS MANNER, IT HAS BEEN CONTENDED THAT THE INSTANT APPE AL OF THE REVENUE IS LIABLE TO BE DISPOSED-OFF IN THE SAID LIGHT. 9. THE FIRST OBJECTION WAS TO THE EFFECT THAT THE B UILT-UP AREA OF THE FLATS WAS MORE THAN PRESCRIBED LIMIT OF 1500 SQ.FT.. IN THIS CONTEXT, THE CIT(A) NOTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAME TO CONCLUDE THAT TH E BUILT-UP AREA OF FLATS WAS IN EXCESS OF 1500 SQ.FT. PRIMARILY ON HIS PERCEPTIO N THAT THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE ITA NOS.1073 TO 1076/PN/2013 A. YS. : 2003-04 TO 2006-07 BETWEEN BUILT-UP AREA AND SALEABLE AREA . AS PER THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT SUBSTANTIATED HIS VIEW WITH ANY COG ENT ARGUMENT. MOREOVER, ACCORDING TO HER, THE SAID VIEW WAS NOT MAINTAINABL E ON ACCOUNT OF DECISION OF THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF D.S. KULKARNI DEVELOPERS LTD. VS. ACIT (ITA NO.1428 & 1429/PN/2008 DATED 08.08.20 12) WHEREBY IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE DEFINITION OF BUILT-UP AREA IN SERTED IN THE ACT W.E.F. 01.04.2005 WAS NOT APPLICABLE TO PROJECTS APPROVED PRIOR TO THAT DATE. ACCORDINGLY, THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE BUILT-UP AREA OF THE FLATS WAS REQUIRED TO BE UNDERSTOOD IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULES OF THE LOCAL MUNICIPAL CORPORATION. THE CIT(A) FURTHER RECORDED A FINDING THAT IN THE P RESENT CASE THE BUILT-UP AREA OF THE FLATS AS PER THE APPROVAL GRANTED BY THE LOC AL MUNICIPAL CORPORATION WAS LESS THAN 1500 SQ.FT. AND THEREFORE THE OBJECTION O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. 10. THE AFORESAID FINDING OF THE CIT(A), IN OUR VIE W, IS FAIR AND PROPER AND IS BASED ON A DECISION OF THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUN AL AND NO DECISION TO THE CONTRARY HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE. THEREFORE , WE HEREBY AFFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ASPECT. 11. THE NEXT OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS WITH REGARD TO THE COMMERCIAL AREA IN THE HOUSING PROJECT, WHICH ACCOR DING TO HIM WAS IN EXCESS OF LIMIT PRESCRIBED OF 2000 SQ.FT.. IN THIS CONTEX T, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD CONSTRUCTED SIX SHOPS IN THE HOUSING PROJECT AND THE TOTAL CONSTRUCTED AREA WAS 2346 SQ. FT.. ALTHOUGH, IT CONSTITUTED ONLY 1.52% OF THE TOTAL BUILT-UP AREA BUT AS PER TH E ASSESSING OFFICER IT EXCEEDED THE MAXIMUM LIMIT PRESCRIBED OF 2000 SQ.FT .. MOREOVER, ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, PRIOR TO 01.04.2005 COMMERCI AL AREA WAS NOT AT ALL PERMISSIBLE IN A PROJECT SEEKING DEDUCTION U/S 80IB (10) OF THE ACT. IN THIS CONTEXT, THE CIT(A) HAS RELIED UPON THE JUDGEMENT O F THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S BRAHMA ASSOCI ATES, (2011) 333 ITR 289 ITA NOS.1073 TO 1076/PN/2013 A. YS. : 2003-04 TO 2006-07 (BOM) AND HELD THAT FOR PROJECTS APPROVED PRIOR TO 01.04.2005 IT WAS NOT CORRECT TO HOLD THAT NO COMMERCIAL AREA WHATSOEVER WAS PERMITTED. THE RELEVANT DISCUSSION IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS A S FOLLOWS :- THE LAW WITH RESPECT TO SECTION 80-IB(10) HAS EVOLV ED RAPIDLY SINCE THE LD. AO PASSED HIS ORDER IN THE APPELLANT'S CASE FOR AY 2005-06 ON 27.12.2007. AS REGARDS THE ISSUE OF PERMISSIBILITY OF COMMERCIAL AREA IN AN ELIGIBLE PROJECT, THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S BRAHMA ASSOCIATES HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS: 'UPTO 31/3/2005 (SUBJECT TO FULFILLING OTHER CONDIT IONS), DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IB(10) IS ALLOWABLE TO HOUSING PRO JECTS APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY HAVING RESIDENTIAL UNITS WIT H COMMERCIAL USER TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED UNDER THE DC RULES /REGULAT IONS FRAMED BY THE RESPECTIVE LOCAL AUTHORITY.' 11.8 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE JURISDICT IONAL HIGH COURT, IT IS NO LONGER POSSIBLE TO HOLD THAT PRIOR TO 01.0 4.2005, NO COMMERCIAL AREA WHATSOEVER WAS PERMITTED IN AN ELIGIBLE HOUSING PRO JECT. ACCORDINGLY, THIS ISSUE ALSO HAS TO BE DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPEL LANT 12. AS PER THE CIT(A), FOR PRE-01.04.2005 APPROVED PROJECTS, SECTION 80IB(10) BENEFIT IS ALLOWABLE TO HOUSING PROJECTS A PPROVED BY LOCAL AUTHORITY HAVING RESIDENTIAL UNITS ALONGWITH COMMERCIAL USAGE , TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED UNDER THE RULES OF THE LOCAL AUTHORITY. ADMITTEDLY , THE PROJECT OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY AS A RESID ENTIAL-CUM-COMMERCIAL PROJECT PRIOR TO 01.04.2005. IN VIEW OF THE JUDGEM ENT OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S BRAHMA ASSOCIATES (SU PRA), WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE CONCLUSION OF THE CIT(A), HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THUS, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ASPECT IS HEREBY AFFIRMED. 13. THE THIRD OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WA S REGARDING MERGER OF CERTAIN FLATS RESULTING IN THE TOTAL AREA OF THE ME RGED FLATS EXCEEDING 1500 SQ.FT.. IN THIS CONTEXT, THE CIT(A) RELIED UPON TH E DECISION OF THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF G.V. CORPORATI ON VS. ITO, 43 DTR 329 (MUM) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT IF THE BUILT-UP AREA OF EACH RESIDENTIAL UNIT DOES NOT EXCEED 1500 SQ.FT., THE FACT THEY WERE JOI NED TOGETHER BY THE PURCHASER FOR BETTER LIVING OR FOR MORE SPACE OR FO R ANY OTHER REASON, WOULD NOT ITA NOS.1073 TO 1076/PN/2013 A. YS. : 2003-04 TO 2006-07 DISENTITLE THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. THE DECISION OF THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE C ASE OF ACIT VS. KRUTI CONSTRUCTIONS (ITA NO.1031/PN/2011 DATED 29.08.2012 ) HAS ALSO BEEN RELIED UPON BY THE CIT(A) IN COMING TO SUCH CONCLUSION. I N OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE CIT(A) DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY INTERFERENCE INASMUCH AS THE SAME IS BASED ON PRECEDENTS AND NO DECISION TO THE CONTRARY HAS BEEN CITED BEFORE US. THUS, ON THIS ASPECT ALS O THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS AFFIRMED. 14. THE LAST OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS WITH REGARD TO THE FACT THAT COMPLETION CERTIFICATE HAVE NOT BEEN OBTAINED IN RE SPECT OF SOME OF THE BUILDINGS. IN THIS CONTEXT, THE CIT(A) HAS HELD AS UNDER :- 11.10 THE LAST ISSUE RAISED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSI NG OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE APPELLANT'S PROJECT WAS HELD TO BE INELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION IS REGARDING COMPLETION. THE FACTS ARE NOT IN DISPU TE. IT IS THE ADMITTED POSITION THAT IN RESPECT OF BUILDINGS 'F' AND 'G' T HOUGH COMPLETION CERTIFICATES HAD BEEN APPLIED FOR, THE SAME HAD NOT BEEN RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT, AND BUILDING 'H' WAS STILL NOT COMPLETE AT THE RELEVANT TIME. ON THIS ISSUE TOO, THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL BENCH OF ITAT IN CITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. ACIT, AMONG OTHERS DECI SIONS, IS IN THE APPELLANT'S FAVOUR. AS SUCH, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE SUPERIOR JUDICIAL AUTHORITY, THIS ISSUE TOO HAS TO BE DECIDED IN THE APPELLANT'S FAVOUR. 15. THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION BY THE CIT(A) SHOWS TH AT THE DECISION OF THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. ACIT (ITA NO.1489/PN/2009 DATED 22.09.2012) HAS BEEN APPLIED WHILE NEGATING THE ASSESSING OFFICERS OBJECTION. BEFORE US, REVENUE HAS NOT REFERRED TO ANY COGENT MATERIAL OR REASONING SO AS TO NEGATE THE FI NDINGS OF THE CIT(A). THE REVENUE HAS ALSO NOT SHOWN AS TO HOW THE CIT(A) ERR ED IN RELYING ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL :- (I) CIT VS. SANGHVI & DOSHI ENTERPRISE, 81 DTR 75 (MAD HC); (II) CIT VS. JAIN HOUSING & CONST. PVT. LTD., 82 D TR 135 (MAD); (III) CITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. ACIT, ITA NO .1489/PN/2009 DATED 22.09.2012; ITA NOS.1073 TO 1076/PN/2013 A. YS. : 2003-04 TO 2006-07 (IV) GLOBAL REALTY VS. ITO 134 ITD 407 (INDORE); A ND, (V) RUNWAL MULTI-HOUSING PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT, ITA NO .1015.PN/2011 DATED 21.11.2012 TO HOLD THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCOR DINGLY, WE HEREBY AFFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ASPECT ALSO. 16. AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION, W E HEREBY AFFIRM THE CONCLUSION OF THE CIT(A) IN SETTING-ASIDE THE ACTIO N OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DENYING THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF TH E ACT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. 17. AS THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN ALL THE CAPTI ONED APPEALS STAND ON IDENTICAL FOOTING OUR DECISION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 003-04 APPLIES MUTATIS- MUTANDIS IN ALL THE CAPTIONED APPEALS OF THE REVENUE. 18. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE CAPTIONED APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH AUGUST, 2014. SD/- SD /- (R.S. PADVEKAR) (G.S. PANNU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE, DATED: 28 TH AUGUST, 2014. SUJEET COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : - 1) THE ASSESSEE; 2) THE DEPARTMENT; 3) THE CIT(A)-CENTRAL, PUNE; 4) THE CIT-CENTRAL, PUNE; 5) THE DR B BENCH, I.T.A.T., PUNE; 6) GUARD FILE. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY I.T.A.T., PUNE