Dy. CIT, Circle 1(2), Pune V. Gera Realty Estates, Pune

ITA 1216/PUN/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 121624514 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 30-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S P WALIMBE
• Assessee Lawyers: S K TYAGI
• Keywords: Competent authority

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B , PUNE BEFORE: SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO . 1216 / P N/ 20 1 3 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009 - 10 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C IRCLE - 1(2), PUNE VS. GERA REALTY ESTATES, 200, GERA PLAZA, BOAT CLUB ROAD, PUNE (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AAAAG3713H APPELLANT BY: SHRI S.P. WALIMBE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI S.K. TYAGI ORDER PER R.S . PADVEKAR , JM : - IN THIS APP EAL, THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENG ED THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) - I, PUNE DATED 11 - 03 - 2013 FOR THE A.Y. 200 9 - 10 . THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN THE APPEAL: 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) IS CONTRARY TO LAW AND TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) GROSSLY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT EXPLANATION TO SECTION 80 - IB( 10 ) IS NOT APPLICABLE AND THAT THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM OF DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF ECK NORTH PROJECT I S TO BE ALLOWED SINCE IT IS A SEPARATE HOUSING PROJECT. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) GROSSLY ERRED IN JAILING TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ECK SOUTH PROJECT CAME UP ON THE SAME PLOT IN RESPECT OF WHICH APPROVAL HAD BEEN TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ECK NORTH PROJECT AND, THEREFORE, THESE TWO PROJECTS WOULD NOT BE TREATED AS SEPARATE HOUSING PROJECTS WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 80 - IB(10) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961. 2 ITA NO . 1216/PN/2013, GERA REALTY ESTATES, PUNE 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) GROSSLY ERRED IN FAILING T O APPRECIATE THAT THE ECK SOUTH PROJECT WAS MERELY AN EXTENSION / REVISION OF THE EARLIER HOUSING PROJECT I.E. ECK NORTH PROJECT, IN RESPECT OF WHICH LAY - OUT SANCTIONED PLAN HAD BEEN APPROVED BY THE PMC ON 24.03.2006, AND THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER STATUTORY O BLIGATION TO COMPLETE THE PROJECTS BY 31.03.2011 WHICH IT FAILED TO DO. 5. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) GROSSLY ERRED IN ALLO WING DEDUCTION U/S. 80 - IB(10) TO THE ASSESSEE WHEN THERE WAS PATENT NON - FULFILMENT OF THE CONDITION PRESCRIBED IN SUB - CLAUSE (II) OF THE EXPLANATION TO CLAUSE (A) OF SECTION 80 - IB(10) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE SOLITARY ISSUE WHICH ARISES IN THIS APPEAL IS IN RESPECT OF THE DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE IS A BUIL DER AND DEVELOPER. AS OBSERVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT I N RESPECT OF HIS PROJECT EMERALD CITY AT KHARADI, PUNE. T HE LAYOUT OF THE PROJECT WAS SANCTIONED (AS PER AUDIT REPORT IN FORM NO. 10CCB) VIDE COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATE NO. 10582/2006 DATED 24 - 03 - 2006 ISSUED BY THE PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORA TION. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE A REFERENCE TO A GOVT. REGISTERED VALUER , SHRI N ITIN LELE TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE . AS PE R SHRI LELE'S REPORT, THE PLOT ADMEASURING 61,000 SQ.MTRS WAS DIVIDED INTO 4 PARTS BY ROADS. THE PROJECT ON WHICH U/S. 80IB(10) WAS CLAIMED WAS LOCATED AT NORTH WEST OF THE PLOT, CALLED EMERALD CITY KHARADI NORTH (ECK NORTH) WHEREAS THE PROJECT ON THE SOUTH WEST PART OF THE PLOT, EMERALD CITY KHARADI SOUTH (ECK SOUTH) WAS ONGOING. THERE WERE OPEN SPACES ON BOTH THE NORTH EAST AND SOUTH EAST OF THE PLOT. AS PER THE REGISTERED VALUER'S REPORT, THE LAYOUT PLAN FOR 3 BUILDINGS VIZ. A, B AND C LOCATED AT ECK NORTH WER E INITIALLY SANCTIONED ON 24 - 03 - 2006. SUBSEQUENTLY, COMMENCEMENT CERT IFICATE S FOR THE THREE BUILDING IN QUESTION WERE ISSUED BY COMMENCEMENT 3 ITA NO . 1216/PN/2013, GERA REALTY ESTATES, PUNE CERTIFICATE NO . 423 DATED 29 - 0 4 - 2006, NO. 897 DATED 0 8 - 0 6 - 2006 AND NO. 245 DATED 19 - 04 - 2006 RESPECTIVELY . THE REV ISED PLANS FOR BUILDING A, B AND C WERE ISSUED C OMMENCEMENT C ERTIFICATE (C.C.) NOS. 4437, 4438 AND 4439 DATED 21 - 03 - 2007. THE DATE OF COMPLETION OF ABOVE BUILDINGS AS PER COMPLETION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY PMC FOR BUILDING A, B AND C IS 18 - 0 4 - 2009. THE ASSES SING OFFICER REQUESTED THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY DEDUCTION SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED AS THE ENTIRE PROJECT HAS NOT BEEN COMPLETED WITHIN THE STIPULATED T IME PERIOD VIZ. 31 - 03 - 2011, SINCE THE CONDITION IN RESPECT OF HOUSING PROJECTS A P P ROVED AFTER 0 1 - 04 - 2005 IS THAT THE SAME SHOULD BE COMPLETED WITHIN 5 YEARS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH SUCH PROJECT IS APPROVED . IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE FIRST PROJECT EMERALD CITY KHARADI NORTH' (ECKN) WAS APPROVED ON 19 - 0 4 - 2006. AS PER THE LAY OUT PLAN SANCTION ED DA TED 24 - 03 - 2006, THERE WAS A RESERVATION IN THE CORNER OF THE PLOT OF LAND. AFTER THE REQUEST MADE TO PMC BY THE ASSESSEE FOR SHIFTING RESERVATION FROM THE CORNER TO CE N TRE OF THE P LOT, THE PMC SANCTIONED SHIFTIN G RESERVATION IN LAYOUT PLAN DATED 18 - 11 - 2006, AND ONLY THEN THE RESERVATION WAS SHIFTED FROM THE CORNER TO CENTRE OF THE PLOT. THUS THE ORIGINAL PLOT OF 61,000 SQ. MTRS . GOT NATURALLY DIVIDED ON 18 - 11 - 2006 AND THE ASSESSEE , THEREAFTER , SUBMITTED THE APPLI CATIONS FOR THE SECOND HOUSIN G PROJECT NAMED 'EMERALD CITY KHARADI SOUTH' (ECKS). THE BUILDING LAYOUT PLAN FOR E CK SOUTH WAS SANCTIONED BY PMC ON 17 - 03 - 2007 AND THE FIRST BUILDING PLAN FOR E CK SOUTH WAS APPROVED VIDE CC/4497/06 DATED 23 - 03 - 2007. THE ASSESS EE THUS CONTENDED THAT ECKN AND ECKS WERE TWO SEPARATE INDEPENDENT H O USING PROJECT S. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT ASSUMING BUT NOT ADMITTING THAT THE T WO PROJECTS ARE ONE PROJECT ONLY, THE ASSESSEE HAD FURTHER TIME TILL 31 - 03 - 2012 TO GET THE COMPLETION C ERTIFICATE SINCE THE FIRST BUILDING PLAN OF BUILDING NO. C OF ECKN WAS SANCTIONED ON 19 - 04 - 2006. 4 ITA NO . 1216/PN/2013, GERA REALTY ESTATES, PUNE 3. HOWEVER, THESE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT ACCEPTED BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER SINCE THE LAYOUT PLAN WAS SANCTIONED IN RESPECT OF THE KHARADI PROJEC T AS A WHOLE ON 24 - 03 - 2006. AS OBSERVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER T HIS HAD ALSO BEEN MENTIONED BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF IN FORM NO. 10CCB. SINCE THE ENTIRE PROJECT WAS NOT COMPLETED BY 31 - 03 - 2011, IN THE SENSE THAT ECK SOUTH PROJECT HAD NOT RECEIVED COMPLE TION CERTIFICATE BY THAT DATE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO CLAIM U/S. 80IB(10). 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, DENIED THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S. 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND LD. CIT(A) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT REASONS AND THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARE AS UNDER: 3.4 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE WITH REFERENCE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS AVAILABLE ON THE ISSUE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND THE DEPARTMENT RELATES TO (I) WHETHER A PLOT OF LAND MEETING THE STIPULATIONS UNDER SEC. 80IB(10) CAN HAVE MORE THAN ONE HOUSING PROJECT. RELATED TO THIS IS THE ISSUE AS TO (II) WHETHER THE LAYOUT SANCTION APPROVAL RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT INITIALLY ON 24.3.2006 AND REVISED LAYOUT SANCTION APPROVAL RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT ON 19.11.2006 CAN LEAD TO A SITUATION WHERE THE APPELLANT CAN BE SAID TO HAVE EXEC UTED TWO SEPARATE HOUSING PROJECTS. ON THE FIRST ISSUE, HE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN VANDANA PROPERTIES HAS CLEARLY HELD THAT 'ON A PLOT OF LAND HAVING MINIMUM AREA OF 1 ACRE THERE CAN BE ANY NUMBER OF HOUSING PROJECTS AND SO LONG AS THOSE HOUSING PROJECTS ARE APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY AND FULFILLED CONDITIONS LAID DOWN U/S 80IB(10), THE DEDUCTION THEREUNDER CANNOT BE DENIED TO ALL THOSE HOUSING PROJECTS. SECTION 80IB(10) WHILE SPECIFYING THE SIZE OF THE PLOT OF THE LAND DOES NOT SPECIFY THE SIZE OR THE NU MBER OF THE HOUSING PROJECTS THAT ARE REQUIRED TO BE UNDERTAKEN ON A PLOT HAVING MINIMUM AREA OF 1 ACRE. AS A RESULT, SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SIZE OF THE PLOT IS LOST AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSES SUBJECT TO FULFILLING OTHER CONDITIONS BECOMES ENTITLED TO SEC. 80IB(10) DEDUCTION ON 5 ITA NO . 1216/PN/2013, GERA REALTY ESTATES, PUNE CONSTRUCTION OF A HOUSING PROJECT ON A PLOT HAVING AREA OF 1 ACRE, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT THAT THERE EXISTS OTHER HOUSING PROJECTS OR NOT.' THE FACTS BEFORE THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VANDANA PROPERTIES WAS THAT THE ASSESS EE IN QUESTION HAD ALREADY CONSTRUCTED CERTAIN BUILDINGS NAMED A, B, C, D DURING THE PERIOD 1993 TO 1996. IT WAS ONLY AFTER RECEIVING APPROVAL OF THE STATE GOVT., SURPLUS VACANT LAND IN THE PLOT IN QUESTION WAS CONVERTED INTO LAND WITHIN CEILING LIMIT AND THE ASSESSEE WAS ABLE TO SUBMIT BUILDING PLAN FOR CONSTRUCTION OF E BUILDING WHICH WAS APPROVED IN THE YEAR BY LOCAL AUTHORITY. IT WAS HELD BY THE MUMBAI HIGH COURT THAT EXPLANATION TO SEC. 80IB(10)(A) INTRODUCED W.E.F. 1.4.2005 REFERS TO APPROVAL GRANTED TO THE SAME HOUSING PROJECT MORE THAN ONCE AND THE SAID EXPLANATION WOULD NOT APPLY WHERE THE APPROVAL IS GRANTED TO DIFFERENT HOUSING PROJECTS. SINCE IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE HAD SOUGHT APPROVAL FOR CONSTRUCTION OF E BUILDING AS EXTE NSION OF EARLIER HOUSING PROJECT, NOR THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION HAD GRANTED APPROVAL FOR CONSTRUCTION OF E BUILDING AS EXTENSION OF EARLIER HOUSING PROJECT, HE COULD NOT BE SAID THAT E BUILDING CONSTITUTES EXTENSION OF EARLIER HOUSING PROJECT. 3.5 COMING T O THE SECOND ISSUE, IN THE INITIAL LAYOUT SANCTIONED PLAN APPROVED BY THE PMC DATED 24.2.2006, IT IS SEEN THAT THE AREA HIGHLIGHTED AS PG - 60 RELATED TO THE AREA RESERVED FOR PLAYGROUND TO THE SOUTH OF THE PLOT AND ADMEASURED 13562 SQ. MTRS OUT OF TOTAL ARE A OF 61000 SQ. MTRS. AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE RESERVED AREA, D P ROAD (8668 SQ. MTRS) AND OPEN SPACE (3876 SQ. MTRS) THE NET PLOT AREA WAS ARRIVED AT 34732 SQ. MTRS. THE APPELLANT WAS SANCTIONED TOTAL RESIDENTIAL FSI OF 13999 SQ. MTRS. AND WAS GIVEN A PPROVAL FOR BUILDINGS A B AND C ONLY. AS PER THIS APPROVAL THE APPELLANT RECEIVED SEPARATE BUILDING - WISE COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATES FOR A B C BUILDINGS ON 29.4.2006, 8.6.2006 AND 19.4.2006 RESPECTIVELY. 3.6 IT WAS ONLY AFTER THE APPROVAL OF THE REVISED LAYO UT PLAN PURSUANT TO SHIFTING OF RESERVATION BY PMC DATED 13.11.2006 THAT THE APPELLANT WAS ABLE TO PROPOSE AND APPLY FOR THE BUILDINGS E,F,G AND H SUBSEQUENTLY. ACCORDINGLY, APP OVAL FOR BUILDINGS E,F,G AND H WAS RECEIVED VIDE PMC'S SANCTION NO. DPO/10574M /110 DATED 17.3.2007 AND THE COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATE FOR BUILDING F & G WAS RECEIVED BY PMC NO. CC/4497/06 DATED 23.3.2007. FROM A 6 ITA NO . 1216/PN/2013, GERA REALTY ESTATES, PUNE PERUSAL OF THESE FACTS IT IS CLEAR THAT WHEN THE APPROVAL FOR ECK NORTH WAS SOUGHT, AND COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATE RECEIVED VI DE PMC REFERENCE NO. CC/0245/06 DATED 19.4.2006, REFERENCE MO. CC/0423/06 DATED 29.4.2006 AND REFERENCE NO . CC/0897/06 DATED 8.6.2006 IN VIEW OF THE RESERVATION OF THE PLOT THERE WAS NO LAND AVAILABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF ANOTHER HOUSING PROJECT. ONLY AFTER THE APPROVAL OF SHIFTING OF RESERVATION IN THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER 2006 WAS RECEIVED, DID THE APPELLANT SEEK APPROVAL OF THE SECOND HOUSING PROJECT ECK SOUTH. THESE APPROVALS WERE SEPARATE APPROVALS BEARING 1 NOS. 10574/110 DATED 17.3.2007 (FOR BUILDINGS D A ND E) AND NO. CC/4497/06 DATED 23.3.2007 (FOR BUILDINGS F & G). THUS IT IS CLEAR THAT (A) WHEN THE INITIAL LAYOUT WAS 1 SANCTIONED AND COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATE RECEIVED THE APPELLANT COULD ONLY RAVE PLANED FOR ECK NORTH, PROJECT, AND (B) ONLY AFTER RECEIVIN G THE APPROVAL FOR SHIFTING OF RESERVATION FROM PMC ON 19.11.2006 THAT THE APPELLANT CONCEIVED OF THE SUBSEQUENT HOUSING PROJECT ENTITLED ECK SOUTH. THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE ARE THEREFORE, IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS 'IN THE VANDANA PROPERTY'S C ASE SINCE THE APPELLANT HAD NEITHER SOUGHT APPROVAL OF ECK SOUTH AS AN EXTENSION/ REVISION OF THE EARLIER HOUSING PROJECT, ECK NORTH NOR HAD THE PMC GRANTED APPROVAL OF ECK SOU TH AS AN EXTENSION/ REVISION OF ECK NORTH. FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF VANDANA PRO PERTIES OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT WHICH IS BINDING, IT IS TO BE HELD THAT EXPLANATION TO SEC. 80IB(10) IS NOT APPLICABLE AND THAT APPELLANT'S CLAIM BF DEDUCTION FOR ECK NORTH IS TO BE ALLOWED SINCE IT IS A SEPARATE HOUSING PROJECT. GROUND NOS. 1 TO 1.3 ARE THEREFORE, ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. NOW, BEING AGGRIEVED THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DATED 15 - 12 - 2004 IN RESPECT OF PLOT OF LAND BEARING S. NO. 73/1, HISSA NO. 1, KHARADI, PUNE ADMEASURING TOTAL AREA OF 61,000 SQ. MTRS. THERE WAS RESERVATION OF THE SAID PLOT OF LAND IN THE PUBLIC PLAYGROUND . THE ASSESSEE HAS COMMENCED HIS FIRST HOUSING PROJEC T UNDER THE NAME EMERALD CITY KHARADI NORTH ( ECK - NORTH). THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE SANCTIONED FOR THE LAYOUT PLAN FOR THE CONSTRUCTION 7 ITA NO . 1216/PN/2013, GERA REALTY ESTATES, PUNE OF THE THREE BUILDINGS FOR THE ABOVE HOUSING PROJECT ON 24 - 03 - 2006. THE COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATE S IN RESPECT OF THE B UILDINGS A, B AND C OF THE AFORESAID HOUSING PROJECT WERE RECEIVED ON 29 - 04 - 2006, 08 - 06 - 2006 AND 19 - 04 - 2006 RESPECTIVELY. THE ASSESSEE COMPLETED THE BUILDINGS A, B AND C AND ALSO OBTAINED COMPLETION CERTIFICATE FOR THOSE BUILDINGS ON 18 - 04 - 2009. THE RESE RVATION FOR A PUBLIC PLAYGROUND WAS IN THE CORNER OF THE AFORESAID PLOT OF LAND AND BESIDES THAT A ROAD WAS ALSO PASSING THROUGH THE SAME . T HE ASSESSEE APPLIED TO THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY FOR SHIFTING THE RESERVATION FROM THE CORNER TO THE MIDDLE OF THE PL OT AND THE SAME GOT APPROVED. AFTER SHIFTING OF THE RESERVATION FOR THE PUBLIC PLAYGROUND , THE AFORESAID ROAD PASS ED THROUGH THE PLOT OF LAND TOUCHING THE AFORESAID PLAYGROUND . IN CONSEQUENCE OF SHIFTING THE AFORESAID RESERVATION FOR PUBLIC PLAYGROUND AN D THE ROAD TOUCHING THE PLAYGROUND, THE PLOT OF LAND GOT DIVIDED INTO TWO SEPARATE PLOTS ONE , I.E. PLOT WAS HAVING THE BUILDING S A, B AND C AND ANOTHER PLOT BECOME THE VACANT PLOT. AFTER THE RESERVATION FOR THE PUBLIC PLAYGROUND WAS SHIFTED BY THE PMC ON 18 - 11 - 2006 , THE ASSESSEE APPLIED FOR SANCTION ING LAYOUT PLAN FOR ANOTHER HOUSING PROJECT UNDER THE NAME EMERALD CITY KHARADI SOUTH (ECK - SOUTH). THE AFORESAID LAYOUT PLAN FOR ANOTHER HOUSING PROJECT I.E. ECK - SOUTH PROJECT WAS SANCTIONED BY THE PMC ON 17 - 03 - 2007 AND THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE GOT APPROVAL FOR THE BUILDING PLAN FOR THE SUBSEQUENT HOUSING PROJECT ON 23 - 03 - 2007. IN THIS BACKGROUND OF THE FACT S , WE CONCUR WITH THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT BOTH THE PROJECTS ARE THE SEPARATE PROJECT . T HE LD . CIT(A) HAS NOTED THE DETAIL SEQUENCE OF FACTS IN RESPECT OF THE EVENTS AS WELL AS THE APPROVAL OF THE PLANS. MOREOVER, IN OUR OPINION THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VANDANA PROPERTIES 206 TAXMAN 584 (BOM H.C.) ARE APPLICABLE TO THE PRES ENT CASE. WE, THEREFORE, FIND NO REASON TO TAKE THE DIFFERENT VIEW AS THE TWO PROJECTS ARE THE SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT PROJECT S AS PER THE FACTS ON 8 ITA NO . 1216/PN/2013, GERA REALTY ESTATES, PUNE RECORD. WE, ACCORDINGLY, CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DISMISS ALL THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE REV ENUE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14 - 0 8 - 201 4 SD/ - SD/ - ( R.K. PANDA ) ( R.S. PADVEKAR ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER RK /PS PUNE , DAT ED : 14 TH AUGUST, 20 1 4 COPY TO 1 ASSESSEE 2 DEPARTMENT 3 THE CIT(A) - I, PUNE 4 THE CIT - I, PUNE 5 THE DR, ITAT, B BENCH, PUNE . 6 GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL P UNE