Income-tax Officer, V. M/s. Kumar Housing & Land Development Ltd., Pune

ITA 1211/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2621 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 04-01-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 04-06-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASEEM SHARMA
• Keywords: Capital asset

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, PUN E , , !'#'' $ , % & BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM / ITA NO. 1211/PN/2014 %' ( ')( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 11(3), PUNE ....... / APPELLANT ' / V/S. M/S. KUMAR HOUSING & LAND DEVELOPMENT LTD. 2413, 2 ND FLOOR, KUMAR CAPITAL, EAST STREET CAMP, PUNE 411001 PAN : AAACK7659N / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NIKHIL PATHAK REVENUE BY : SHRI ASEEM SHARMA / DATE OF HEARING : 04-01-2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03-03-2016 * / ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM : THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE OR DER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I, PUNE DATED 28-11- 2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2 ITA NO. 1211/PN/2014, A.Y. 2006-07 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS EMANATING FROM THE RE CORDS ARE: THE ASSESSEE IS A BUILDER, PROMOTER AND DEVELOPER. THE ASSES SEE DEVELOPED A HOUSING PROJECT UNDER THE NAME KUMAR SURAKSHA. T HE SAID PROJECT WAS APPROVED VIDE COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATE DATED 19-11- 2003. FIVE BUILDINGS VIZ. A, B, C, D AND E WERE CONSTRUCTED UNDER THE SAID PROJECT. COMPLETION CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF BUILDING A, D AND E WERE RECEIVED ON 13-02-2006 AND IN RESPECT OF BUILDING B AND C COMPLETION CERTIFICAT E WAS GRANTED ON 29-03-2006. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUC TION U/S. 80IB(10) ON THE AFORESAID HOUSING PROJECT. DURING THE CO URSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE C LAIM OF ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE HOUSING PROJECT COMP RISING OF 9 BUILDINGS (A TO I) AS PER RE-REVISED LAYOUT PLAN DATED 08-1 0-2004 WAS NOT COMPLETED AS ON THE DATE OF INSPECTION I.E. 12-12-200 8 AND 15-12-2008. ONLY PART OF THE PROJECT WAS COMPLETE, THE REFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29-12-2008, T HE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING THAT THE PROJECT KUMAR SURAK SHA COMPRISES OF FIVE BUILDINGS A, B, C, D, AND E WAS COMPLETE IN EVERY RESPECT IN THE YEAR 2006. THE OTHER 4 BUILDINGS F, G, H AND I ARE PART OF THE PROJECT KUMAR SANSAR WHICH IS DEVELOPED BY THE SISTER CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE, M/S. KUMAR BUILDERS CONSORTIUM AND THE COMM ENCEMENT CERTIFICATE FOR THE SAID PROJECT WAS OBTAINED ON 19-11-20 03. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. KUM AR BUILDERS CONSORTIUM IN ITA NO. 819/PN/2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE AR 2007-08 DECIDED ON 20-03-2013. SIMILAR ISSUE HAD COME BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN 3 ITA NO. 1211/PN/2014, A.Y. 2006-07 THE CASE OF M/S. KUMAR BUILDERS CONSORTIUM IN RESPECT OF PROJECT KUMAR SANSAR. THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT BOTH THE PROJEC TS ARE INDEPENDENT AND DISTINCT. FURTHER, THE TRIBUNAL UPHELD THE FINDINGS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN GRANTING DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) TO THE PROJECT KUMAR SANSAR. THE COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN THE LIGHT OF AFORESAID DECISION OF THE TRIBUNA L GRANTED DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) TO THE PRESENT ASSESSEE, AS WELL. AGAINST THE FINDINGS OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEA L BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 3. SHRI ASEEM SHARMA REPRESENTING THE DEPARTMENT SUBM ITTED THAT THE ORIGINAL PLAN WAS SANCTIONED IN THE YEAR 2003. THE PLA N WAS REVISED ON 08-10-2004 INCREASING THE PROPOSED TENEMENT S FROM 64 TO 252 AND PERMISSIBLE TENEMENTS FROM 455 TO 649. THE COM PLETION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE PMC IN RESPECT OF KUMAR SURAKS HA IS NOT FINAL CERTIFICATE AND IS ONLY A PART OF COMPLETION CERTIFICATE. THE APPROVED VALUER VISITED THE SITE ON 12-12-2008 AND AGAIN ON 15-12-2008. THE APPROVED VALUER AFTER INSPECTING THE H OUSING PROJECT SITE REPORTED THAT BUILDINGS A, B, C, D AND E UNDER THE GR OUP OF KUMAR SURAKSHA ARE COMPLETE WHEREAS THE BUILDINGS F, G, H AN D I UNDER THE GROUP OF KUMAR SANSAR ARE INCOMPLETE. THERE IS NO SUB -DIVISION OF LAND IN TWO PLOTS HENCE, THE ENTIRE PROJECT IS ONE SINGLE P ROJECT WHICH IS NOT FULLY COMPLETE EVEN ON THE DATE OF INSPECTION. THE E NTIRE PROJECT IS DEVELOPED ON LAND MEASURING 50,308 SQ. MTRS. OUT OF WHICH O NLY PART OF THE PROJECT IS COMPLETE. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT WHER E THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE OF THE HOUSING PROJECT WAS ISSUED AFT ER THE CUT OF DATE BY LOCAL AUTHORITY, NO DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) CAN BE GRANTED TO SUCH A PROJECT. TO SUPPORT HIS SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. DR P LACED RELIANCE 4 ITA NO. 1211/PN/2014, A.Y. 2006-07 ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN T HE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. GLOBAL REALITY REPORTED AS 62 TAXMANN.COM 204. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND SHRI NIKHIL PATHAK APPEARING ON BEH ALF OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUC TION U/S. 80IB(10) IN RESPECT OF ITS PROJECT KUMAR SURAKSHA. THE CERTIFICATE OF COMMENCEMENT WAS GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF SAID PROJECT ON 19-11-2003 BY PMC. THEREAFTER THE LAYOUT PLAN WAS REVISED AND THE TOTAL AREA OF THE PLOT WAS WORKED OUT AT 9801.24 SQ. MTR S. AS AGAINST IN ORIGINAL PLAN AT 20,052 SQ. MTRS. THE PROPOSED TENEMENTS W ERE INCREASED. THE REVISED COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATE IN RESPEC T OF PROJECT KUMAR SANSAR WAS OBTAINED ON 08-10-2004. ACCORDING TO THE REVISED PLAN 5 BUILDINGS A, B, C, D AND E WERE PART OF PROJECT K UMAR SURAKSHA WHICH WAS DEVELOPED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REMAINING 4 BUILDINGS F, G, H AND I WERE DEVELOPED UNDER THE PROJECT KUMAR SANSAR BY THE GROUP CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE M/S. KUM AR BUILDERS CONSORTIUM. BOTH THE PROJECTS ARE INDEPENDENT AND HAV E INDEPENDENT COMMENCEMENT AND COMPLETION CERTIFICATES. BOTH THE PROJE CTS HAVE INDEPENDENT SET OF AMENITIES, APPROACH ROAD, BOUNDARY AND ARE SEPARATE BY 20 MTRS. WIDE D.P. ROAD. THUS, BOTH THE PROJ ECTS ARE DIFFERENT. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SIMILAR ISSUE WAS RAISED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY THE DEPARTMENT IN THE CASE OF M /S. KUMAR BUILDERS CONSORTIUM. THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 819/PN/2011 (SUPRA) WHILE UPHOLDING THE GRANT OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) TO M/S . KUMAR BUILDERS CONSORTIUM IN RESPECT OF PROJECT KUMAR SURAKS HA HELD THAT BOTH THE PROJECTS ARE INDEPENDENT. 5 ITA NO. 1211/PN/2014, A.Y. 2006-07 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE REPRESEN TATIVES OF RIVAL SIDES AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW. THE ISSUE IN PRESENT APPEAL IS WHETHER THE PROJECT KUMAR S URAKSHA DEVELOPED BY ASSESSEE WAS COMPLETE BEFORE THE DUE DAT E, TO BE ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10). THE CERTIFICATE OF COMMENCE MENT IN RESPECT OF THE SAID PROJECT WAS ISSUED BY PMC ON 19-11 -2003. THUS, TO BE ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION, PROJECT SHOULD BE COMPLETED O N OR BEFORE 31-03-2008. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE THE PROJECT CO MPRISING OF 5 BUILDINGS A, B, C, D AND E WERE COMPLETE IN ALL RESPECT IN MAR CH, 2006. THIS FACT HAS BEEN MENTIONED BY THE APPROVED VALUER IN H IS REPORT WHO INSPECTED THE SITE. HOWEVER, THE CONTENTION OF THE DEPARTMENT IS THAT THE P ROJECT COMPRISES OF NINE BUILDINGS A TO I. THE BUILDINGS F, G, H AND I WERE APPROVED VIDE REVISED LAYOUT PLAN, THEREFORE, THE ENTIRE PR OJECT IS ONE AND INTEGRATED. SINCE, THE BUILDINGS F, G, H AND I WERE NOT COMPLETE EVEN ON THE DATE OF INSPECTION I.E. 12-12-2008 THE ASSESS EE IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10). WHEREAS, THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT BUILDINGS F TO I ARE PART OF SEPARATE PROJECT KUMAR SANSAR DEVELOPED BY SISTER CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THE SAME SHOULD NOT BE CLUBBED WITH THE PROJECT OF THE ASSESSEE TO ASCERTAIN COMPLETION OF ASSES SEES PROJECT. WE FIND THAT THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF M/S. KUMAR BUILDERS CONSORTIUM (SUPRA) HAS DEALT WITH THIS ISSUE . THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL ARE AS UNDER: 10. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS AND MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED T HE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/S.80IB(10) OF THE ACT WITH REGARD TO ITS PROJECT KUMAR SANSAR WHICH WAS COMMENCED VIDE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE DAT ED 09.06.2006. HE OBSERVED THAT WORD REVISED WAS MENTIONED ON TOP O F THIS COMPLETION 6 ITA NO. 1211/PN/2014, A.Y. 2006-07 CERTIFICATE. THUS IT WAS A REVISED COMPLETION CERTI FICATE FOR ENTIRE PROJECT. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT KUMAR SANSAR PROJECT HAD O NLY THREE BUILDINGS G, H & I WHILE COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATE DATED 09.06 .2006 MENTIONED BUILDINGS A TO I, I.E., A, B, C, D & E WERE ALSO SH OWN. THE KUMAR SURAKSHA WAS DEVELOPED BY KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT L TD., WHICH WAS EARLIER KNOWN AS KUMAR HOUSING & LAND DEVELOPMENT C O. ACCORDING TO ASSESSING OFFICER, IT WAS SAME PROJECT WHICH WAS EX TENDED AND ASSESSEE HAS BIFURCATED THE SAME AS TWO PROJECTS. A S DISCUSSED ABOVE, ASSESSEE HAS MADE DETAILED CLARIFICATION WITH REGAR D TO ITS CLAIM AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. THE ASSESSEE VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 26.07.2008 BEFORE THE CIT(A) CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT ACTUALLY THE ASSE SSEE FIRM CAME INTO EXISTENCE VIDE PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED 20.09.2005, I .E, MUCH AFTER THE COMMENCEMENT OF KUMAR SURAKSHA PROJECT BY KUMAR HOU SING & LAND DEVELOPMENT CO. IT WAS THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE TH AT KUMAR SURAKSHA PROJECT COMMENCED VIDE COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATE DAT ED 19.11.2003, THE ASSESSEE FIRM KUMAR BUILDERS CONSORTIUM WAS NOT IN EXISTENCE AT THAT RELEVANT POINT OF TIME. ACTUALLY THE LAND OF THIS K UMAR SANSAR PROJECT OF ASSESSEE WAS TRANSFERRED BY KUMAR HOUSING & LAND DE VELOPMENT CO., TO THE ASSESSEE FIRM THROUGH A REGISTERED DEVELOPME NT AGREEMENT DATED 15.10.2005 AND ASSESSEES FIRM CAME INTO EXISTENCE VIDE PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED 20.09.2005 AND ASSESSEE FIRM OBTAINED CO MMENCEMENT CERTIFICATE DATED 09.06.2006 FOR BUILDINGS G, H & I WHICH WERE NAMED AS KUMAR SANSAR. THE SAID PROJECT WAS COMPLETED VIDE C OMPLETION CERTIFICATE CC NO.720 DATED 23.03.2010. THUS, KUMAR SURAKSHA AND KUMAR SANSAR PROJECTS ARE SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT PROJECTS HAVING DIFFERENT COMMENCEMENT AND COMPLETION CERTIFICATES, INDEPENDENT AMENITIES AND SUPPORT FUNCTIONS, INDEPENDENT APPROA CH ROAD AND BOUNDARIES, BOTH ARE SEPARATED BY 20 MT. WIDE DP ROA D AND BOTH ARE HAVING DIFFERENT HOUSING SOCIETIES. THE KUMAR SANSA R PROJECT WAS DEVELOPED BY ASSESSEE FIRM WHICH WAS ALTOGETHER DIF FERENT LEGAL ENTITY THAN KUMAR HOUSING & LAND DEVELOPMENT CO., WHEN KUM AR SURAKSHA WAS STARTED BY KUMAR HOUSING & LAND DEVELOPMENT CO. , THE ASSESSEE FIRM WAS NOT EVEN IN EXISTENCE. THE ASSESSEE HAS TH US EXPLAINED THE ABOVE DISTINCTION THROUGH DIFFERENT COMMENCEMENT CE RTIFICATES AND LAY OUTS PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK WITH REGARD TO BOTH P ROJECTS. BOTH THESE PROJECTS FULFILLED ALL THE CONDITIONS OF SECTION 80 IB(10) IN ITS OWN SPHERES. LAY OUT PLAN APPROVAL AND BUILDING PLAN APPROVAL AR E TWO DIFFERENT SANCTIONS GIVEN BY CONCERNED COMPETENT AUTHORITIES. INITIALLY LAY OUT APPROVAL WAS TAKEN BY KUMAR HOUSING & LAND DEVELOPM ENT CO., WHEREIN PROPOSED G, H & I BUILDINGS WERE ALSO CONCE IVED BUT BUILDING PLAN APPROVED FOR LATER BUILDINGS WAS NOT TAKEN BY KUMAR HOUSING & 7 ITA NO. 1211/PN/2014, A.Y. 2006-07 LAND DEVELOPMENT CO., WHICH IS INDEPENDENT FROM THE FACT THAT DEVELOPMENT CHARGES PAID FOR BOTH PROJECTS ARE DIFF ERENT. THE DEVELOPMENT CHARGES FOR BUILDING PLAN APPROVAL FOR BUILDINGS G, H & I WERE IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE IN ITS PROJECT KUMAR S ANSAR WAS PAID ON 08.06.2006 AND 14.06.2006. THE EARLIER COMPANY, KUM AR HOUSING & LAND DEVELOPMENT CO., HAD PAID THE DEVELOPMENT CHAR GES ONLY FOR BUILDINGS A TO E KNOWN AS KUMAR SURAKSHA AND NOT FO R BUILDING, G, H & I. VIDE SEPARATE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DATED 15.10. 2005, TRANSFER OF LAND TOOK PLACE FROM KHLD TO ASSESSEE FIRM AT A PRI CE OF 3.34 CRORES AND AS PER ACCOUNTING PRACTICE, THE EXPENSES APPORTIONA BLE TO THAT PORTION OF LAND FOR DEVELOPMENT COST ETC., WERE ALSO INCLUDED IN THIS CONSIDERATION. THIS HAS BEEN APPRECIATED IN PARAS 8 AND9 OF THE AS SESSMENT ORDER. THUS, THE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS OF THE PORTION OF THE LAND HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED BY DULY REGISTERED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMEN T DATED 15.10.2005 TO KUMAR BUILDERS CONSORTIUM, WHICH IS THE ASSESSEE FIRM, BY EARLIER COMPANY KUMAR HOUSING & LAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY WH ICH WAS HOLDING ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS. THUS ASSESSEE FI RM IS DIFFERENT LEGAL ENTITY THAN COMPANY KUMAR HOUSING & LAND DEVELOPMEN T COMPANY AND TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS HAVE BEEN MADE THROU GH VALID DOCUMENTATION. THOUGH IN ORIGINAL LAY OUT PLAN IN C ASE OF KUMAR HOUSING & LAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, THE BUILDINGS G, H & I WERE MENTIONED BUT THEY WERE NOT DEVELOPED BY SAID FIRM BUT BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM AFTER OBTAINING DUE BUILDING PLAN APPROVED FOR BUILDINGS G, H & I AND ASSESSEE HAS PAID DEVELOPMENT CHARGES FOR THE SAME. THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT EARLIER M/S. KUMAR HOUSIN G & LAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY HAS PAID DEVELOPMENT CHARGES WI TH REGARD TO BUILDINGS G, H & I OF THIS KUMAR SANSAR PROJECT. KU MAR HOUSING & LAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY HAS APPROVAL FOR BUILDINGS A, B , C, D & E UNDER THE NAME AS KUMAR SURAKSHA WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS NO T IN EXISTENCE AT ALL BECAUSE ASSESSEE CAME INTO EXISTENCE VIDE PA RTNERSHIP DEED DATED 20.09.2005 ONLY. MERE MENTIONING IN COMPLETION CERT IFICATE DATED 09.06.2006 AS REVISED ON TOP BY LOCAL AUTHORITY A ND BUILDINGS A TO E SHOWN THEREON DOES NOT IMPLY THAT BUILDINGS G, H & I OF KUMAR SANSAR PROJECT WERE EXTENSION OF SAME PROJECT EARLIER DEVE LOPED BY KUMAR HOUSING & LAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY. THIS MAY BE THE PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION FOR SAME SURVE Y NUMBERS OR FOR AN AMALGAMATION THAT THEY SHOW THE ENTIRE LAY OUT PLAN INCLUDING EARLIER BUILDINGS VIDE LETTER DATED 20.01.2001. THE ASSESSE E HAS MADE COMPARISON OF THE FACTS OF ITS CASE WITH THE FACTS OF SIMILAR ISSUES WHICH CAME BEFORE ITAT, IN THE CASE OF APOORVA PROPERTIES (SUPRA) AND ALSO IN THE CASE OF SAROJ SALES ORGANISATION (SUPRA), AS DI SCUSSED ABOVE. SIMILAR 8 ITA NO. 1211/PN/2014, A.Y. 2006-07 VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VANDANA PROPERTIES (SUPRA) AND BY ITAT PUNE BENCH I N THE CASE OF ANKIT ENTERPRISES (SUPRA). THE RATIO OF ABOVE DECISIONS S UPPORTS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT KUMAR SANSAR PROJECT DEVELOPED BY T HE ASSESSEE FIRM COMPRISES OF BUILDINGS G, H & I, WHICH ARE DIFFEREN T AND DISTINCT FROM EARLIER PROJECT DEVELOPED BY DIFFERENT LEGAL ENTITY , I.E., KUMAR HOUSING & LAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY. THUS, IT IS ABUNDANTLY CL EAR THAT ASSESSEE CAME INTO EXISTENCE ONLY ON 20.09.2005 AND DEVELOPM ENT RIGHTS IN THE LAND WAS TRANSFERRED TO IT BY KUMAR HOUSING & LAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY BY VALID AGREEMENT. IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT PROJECT DEVELOPED BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM WAS EXTENSION OF EARLIER PROJECT DEVELOPED BY KUMAR HOUSING & LAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY. THERE IS A VALI D TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS ON A PART OF THE SAID LAND. THE PAYMENT OF DEVELOPMENT CHARGES FOR THE BUILDING FOR THE BUILDI NG APPROVAL WAS MADE AS CC DATED 09.06.2006 FOR BUILDINGS G, H & I WHICH IS INDEPENDENT PROJECT AND ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) . THIS VIEW OF THE CIT(A) IS WELL FORTIFIED BY THE DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASES OF APOORVA PROPERTIES (SUPRA), SAROJ SALES ORGANISATION (SUPRA ), ANKIT ENTERPRISES (SUPRA) AND DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT I N VANDANA PROPERTIES (SUPRA), AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. MOREOVER, BOTH PROJECT S ARE INDEPENDENT HAVING INDEPENDENT COMMENCEMENT AND COMPLETION CERT IFICATES, INDEPENDENT AMENITIES AND SEPARATE FUNCTIONS, INDEP ENDENT APPROACH AND BOUNDARIES, BOTH ARE SEPARATED BY 20 MT. DP ROA D, BOTH ARE HAVING DIFFERENT HOUSING SOCIETIES AND ARE CARRIED OUT BY DIFFERENT ENTITIES. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN GRANTING THE DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS REASONED FINDING BASED ON FACTS AND LAW NEEDS NO INTERFERENCE FROM OUR SIDE. WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 6. THUS, IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEES SISTER CONCERN, IT IS ABUNDANTLY CLEA R THAT THE PROJECT KUMAR SURAKSHA ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS C LAIMED DEDUCTION IS AN INDEPENDENT PROJECT COMPRISING OF 5 BUILDINGS A TO E AND THE SAID BUILDINGS WERE COMPLETE IN EVERY RESPECT WELL BEFORE THE DU E DATE I.E. 31-03-2008. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM DE DUCTION ON THE SAID PROJECT. 9 ITA NO. 1211/PN/2014, A.Y. 2006-07 7. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS UPHELD AND THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED BEING DEVOID OF ANY MERIT. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THURSDAY, THE 03 RD DAY OF MARCH, 2016. SD/- SD/- ( . . / R.K. PANDA) ( ! ' / VIKAS AWASTHY) #' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $ % #' / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; &# / DATED : 03 RD MARCH, 2016 RK *+,%-.#/#)- / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ' () / THE CIT(A)-I, PUNE 4. ' / THE CIT-I, PUNE 5. !*+ %%,- , ,- , . ./0 , / DR, ITAT, B BENCH, PUNE. 6. + 1 23 / GUARD FILE. // ! % // TRUE COPY// #4 / BY ORDER, %5 ,0 / PRIVATE SECRETARY, ,- , / ITAT, PUNE