ITO, Pune V. COSMOPOLIS CONSTRUCTION, Pune

ITA 1260/PUN/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0745 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 13-10-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 04-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B C MALAKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: NILESH KHANDELWAL
• Keywords: Competent authority
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B , PUNE , , BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA , A M . / ITA NO. 1260 /PN/201 3 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 0 9 - 1 0 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 2(3), PUNE . / APPELLANT VS. COSMOPOLIS CONSTRUCTION 614, OPP. PARSI AGYARI, NANA PETH, PUNE 411002 . / RESPON DENT PAN: AA AAC3785B / APPELLANT BY : S HRI B.C. MALAKAR / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI NILESH KHANDELWAL / DATE OF HEARING : 1 3 . 1 0.2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 31 .1 2 .2015 / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J M : TH IS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT (A) - II , PUNE , DATED 3 1 . 0 1 .20 1 3 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 0 9 - 1 0 AGAINST ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT , 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) . 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) OF THE ACT OF RS.4,81,97,731/ - FOR THE A.Y. 2009 - 10 , WHEN THE PROJECT M/S. PAR K ISLAND WAS INITIALLY SANCTIONED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY ON 03.06.1997 ITA NO. 1260 /PN/20 1 3 COSMOPOLIS CONSTRUCTION 2 WHICH IS PRIOR TO 1998 WHEN DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) IS ALLOWABLE TO PROJECTS COMMENCED ON OR AFTER 01 ST OCTOBER, 1998. 2. ALTERNATIVELY, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) OF THE ACT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ENTIRE PROJECT WAS NOT COMPLETED ON OR BEFORE 31.03.2008. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE PRO JECT A AND PROJECT B WERE TWO SEPARATE PROJECTS WHEN SANCTION WAS ACCORDED VIDE ONE COMMON PLAN BY THE PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BEFORE 01.04.2004 AND THE PROJECT WAS NOT COMPLETED BEFORE 31.03.2008 AS REQUIRED U/S.80IB(10)(A)(I) OF THE ACT. 4 . THE A PPE LLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD , ALTER OR AMEND AN Y OR ALL GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS IN RELATION TO THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. 4. BRIEFLY, IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE WAS AS SOCIATION OF PERSONS FORMED ON 19.04.2004. THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT FOR THE INSTANT ASSESSMENT YEAR AT RS. 4,81,97,731/ - . THE AUDITOR IN FORM NO.10CCB HAD REPORTED THAT THE DATE OF COMPLETION OF THE THE AUDITOR IN FORM NO.10CCB HAD REPORTED THAT THE DATE OF COMPLETION OF THE HOUSING PROJ ECT WAS 31.03.2008 . THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT , REFERRED THE MATTER TO DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER (IN SHORT DVO) . IN THAT REPORT, THE DVO HAS REPORTED THAT BUILDING NOS.B 5 & B6 HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED, BUT THEIR COMPLETION CERTIFICATE HAS NOT BEEN OBTAINED AND ONLY THE FOUNDATION IS LAID FOR BUILDING NOS.B3 & B4 AND BUILDING NOS.B1 & B2 HAD STILL NOT STARTED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER NOTED FROM THE RECORDS AND THE VALU ATION OFFICERS REPORT THAT THE LAYOUT PLAN OF THE PROJECT WAS INITIALLY SANCTIONED BY PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ON 03.06.1997 . THIS PROJECT WAS REVISED IN THE YEARS 2000, 2001 VIDE COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATES DATED 03.04.2000 AND 08.07.2001 RESPECTIVELY. THE DVO PHYSICALLY VERIFIED THE PROJECT THAT THE BUILDINGS A1 TO A6 HAVE BEEN COMPLETED AN D ALL THE TENEMENT SIZES WERE LESS THAN 1500 SQ. FT. ITA NO. 1260 /PN/20 1 3 COSMOPOLIS CONSTRUCTION 3 THE SIZE OF THE LAND ON WHICH BUILDINGS A1 TO A6 WERE CONSTRUCTED WAS MORE THAN ONE ACRE AND THE AOP HAD BEEN F ORMED ON 19.04.2004 . THE INITIAL SANCTION WAS ACCORDED ON 03.06.1997 FOR THE ENTIRE PROJECT CONSISTING BUILDINGS A1 TO A6 , WHICH WAS TERMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PROJECT A. THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT FOR THE SAI D PROJECT A CALLING IT AS A SEPARATE PROJECT. IN VIEW THEREOF, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOW CAUSED THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT SHOULD NOT BE REJECTED ON THE GROUND THAT NO COMPLETION CERTIFICATE HAS BEEN OBTAINED FROM PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION FOR THE BUILDINGS B5 & B6 AND ONLY FOUNDATION WAS LAID FOR BUILDINGS B3 & B4 AND BUILDINGS B1 & B2 STILL HAD NOT STARTED CONSTRUCT ION. FURTHER, SINCE THE FIRST SANCTION WAS ACCORDED BY PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ON 03.06.1997 , H ENCE THE SAME DATE IS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR DECIDING THE LAST DATE FOR COMPLETION AND SINCE 03.06.1997 WAS PRIOR TO 01.04.2004, THE SAID PROJECT SHOULD HAVE BEEN COMPLETED BEFORE 31.03.2008 . HOWEVER, THE PROJECT STILL HAD NOT COMPLETED. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE HOWEVER, THE PROJECT STILL HAD NOT COMPLETED. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD WAS THAT THE SAID PLOT OF LAND WAS PURCHASED BY THE COMPANY SHARAN ESTATES PVT. LTD. AND THEY HAD SUBMITTED PLANS FOR SANCTIONING WHICH WAS ACCORDED ON 3 0 .06.1997 . SUBSEQUENTLY, ON 09.06.1999, PMC ISSUED COMMENCEMENT C ERTIFICA TE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION, THAT WAS FIRST DATE POST WHICH THE CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT A COULD HAVE COMMENCED. HOWEVER, THE COMPANY DID NOT COMMENCE DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES INDEPENDENTLY UNTIL 2004 . IT WAS ONLY AFTER 2004 , THE ACTUAL DEVE LOPMENT EXPENSES WERE INCURRED BY THE AOP. THE ELECTRICITY METER WAS CLAIMED TO BE INSTALLED ON SITE ONLY IN MARCH, 2005. FURTHER, THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT AFTER COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION OF PROJECT A BUILDING POST TO 2004, THE B ALANCE AREA I.E. 3806 SQ. MTRS. WAS E XEMPTED AS PER THE ORDERS UNDER THE URBAN LAND CEILING & REGULATION ACT, 1976 , DATED 21.10.2005 ITA NO. 1260 /PN/20 1 3 COSMOPOLIS CONSTRUCTION 4 AND THE AREA OF 3806 SQ. MTRS. W AS DEVELOPED AS PROJECT B. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE PROJECT B WAS SEPARATE P ROJECT AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CLAIMED ANY DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT ON THE SAID PROJECT, INCOME FROM WHICH WAS DECLARED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 . THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT SINCE THE PROJECT WAS INITIALLY SANCTIONED BY THE LOCA L AUTHORITY ON 03.06.1997 , WHICH WAS PRIOR TO 1998, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. FURTHER, VIDE ONE COMMON PLAN SANCTION ED DATED 0 9.11.2006 BY PMC, THE PROJECT COMPRISED OF BUILDINGS A1 TO A6, B1 TO B6 AND AS THE ASSESSEE HAD ONLY CONSTRUCTED THE BUILDINGS A1 TO A6 AND OTHER BUILDINGS WERE NOT COMPLETED AS PER THE CERTIFICATE OF DVO, THE PROJECT WAS INCOMPLETE AND THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT . THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED THAT EVEN PRESUMING BUT NOT ACCEPTING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT, THEN THE SAME SHOULD HAVE BEEN COMPLETED ON OR BEFORE 31.03.2008 , WHICH WAS NOT THE CASE AND HENCE, BEEN COMPLETED ON OR BEFORE 31.03.2008 , WHICH WAS NOT THE CASE AND HENCE, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO OBTAIN COMPLETION CERTIFICATE FROM THE LOCAL AUTHORITY. SINCE THE BASIC CONDITIONS OF SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT WERE NOT COMPLIED WITH, THE AS SESSEE WAS HELD TO BE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION AT RS. 4,81,97,731/ - . 5. THE CIT(A) REJECTED THE PRELIMINARY CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS NOT COMMUNICATED WITHIN PRESCRIBED PERIOD. WITH REGARD TO THE CLAIM OF DED UCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT , THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) WAS THAT THE BUILDING PLAN ON THE BASIS OF WHICH CONSTRUCTION WAS STARTED WAS FIRST APPROVED ON 17.04.2004 AND THEREFORE, THIS WAS THE DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF THE HO USING PROJECT. THE ITA NO. 1260 /PN/20 1 3 COSMOPOLIS CONSTRUCTION 5 ASSESSEE FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT THE COMPANY SHARAN ESTATES PVT. LTD. HAD PURCHASED UNDIVIDED SHARES OF VARIOUS OWNERS OF LAND AT SURVEY NO.186, YERWADA, PUNE ADMEASURING 15900 SQ. MTRS. BETWEEN 1994 - 96 AND THE SAID LAND WAS SUBJECT TO T HE PROVISIONS OF URBAN LAND CEILING & REGULATION ACT, 1976. THE LAND WAS TO BE DEVELOPED AS PROJECTS A AND B , WHICH WAS BASED ON THE STA TUTORY PERMISSION UNDER THE ULCA, 1976, UNDER WHICH AN AREA OF 12094 SQ. MTRS., WAS EXEMPTED. THOUGH THE PLANS FOR THE SAID AREA WAS SANCTIONED EARLIER FOR A LESSER AREA AND THEN FOR BIGGER AREA, BUT THERE WAS NO COMMENCEMENT OF DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES IN THE SAID LAND UNTIL FORMATION OF THE PRESENT AOP. THE SAID PLAN WAS SANCTIONED AS A PRE - CONDITION FOR THE FORMATI ON OF AOP, WHICH COMMENCED CONSTRUCTION THEREAFTER. SUBSEQUENTLY, BALANCE AREA OF 3806 WAS EXEMPTED AS PER THE ORDERS OF ULCA, 1976, WHICH WAS DEVELOPED AS PROJECT B. THE PMC SANCTIONED THE PROJECT B ON 19.11.2006. THE PROJECT A WAS APPROVED FOR NET AREA OF 11,134 SQ. MTRS. AFTER DEDUCTION OF OPEN SPACE AND INTERNAL ROAD. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) WAS OPEN SPACE AND INTERNAL ROAD. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) WAS THAT ON 03.06.1997 , THE FIRST PLAN WAS SANCTIONED WITH CONDITION THAT THE CONSTRUCTION COULD NOT BE COMMENCED UNTIL NALLA NOC WAS OBTAINED FRO M PMC. THEREFORE, THE PMC ISSUED COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATE DATED 09.06.1999 FOR THE SAME AFTER THE OBJECTION WAS MET AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT A COULD HAVE COMMENCED. HOWEVER, CHARGES DUE TO THE NOC TO BE OBTAINED FROM PMC WERE TO BE PAID. THE C ASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION WAS ONLY AFTER 2004 AND BEFORE THAT THE COMPANY SHARAN ESTATES PVT. LTD. HAD NEVER COMMENCED ANY DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY INDEPENDENTLY. SINCE THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSING PROJEC T COMMENCED POST 17.04.2004 AND AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, DUE DATE FOR COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION WAS 31.03.2009 THOUGH THE DATE FOR COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ON OR BEFORE 31.03.2008 AND ITA NO. 1260 /PN/20 1 3 COSMOPOLIS CONSTRUCTION 6 PROJECT A WAS COMPLETED ON 3 1.03.2008. THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING FACTUAL ASPECTS OF THE CASE I.E. THE LAND ACQUIRED BY EARLIER COMPANY AND THEREAFTER, FORMATION OF AOP AND VARIOUS EVENTS TAK EN PLACE BEFORE 09.06.1999 I.E. DATE ON WHICH PMC ISSUED COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATE, WHICH W AS ISSUED WITH A CONDITION, WHICH IN TURN HAD TO BE REMOVED AFTER PAYMENT OF CHARGES. THE CIT(A) THUS OBSERVED THAT THE SAME CLEARLY INDICATES THAT THE PROJECT ENVISAGED COULD NOT HAVE STARTED BEFORE 09.06.1999 BOTH BECAUSE OF ULC RESTRICTION AS WELL AS T HE CONDITION IMPOSED BY THE PMC . THE CLEAR AREA OF 12094 SQ. MTRS. WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE ONLY WHEN THE THIRD COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATE OBTAINED ON 14.07.2001 . HOWEVER, THE COMPANY DID NOT COMMENCE THE CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF LAND UNTIL F ORMATION OF AOP WITH RAVIRAJ KOTHARI BUILDERS ON 19.04.2004, WHICH WAS FORMED AS A PRE - CONDITION TO THE PLAN SANCTIONED ON 17.04.2004. THE CIT(A) THUS HELD THAT THE CONTENTION OF TH E ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE PROJECT COMMENCED ON INITIAL SANCTION BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY ON 03.06.1997 I.E. PRIOR TO 1998, WAS NOT CORRECT. THE CIT(A) FURTHER AUTHORITY ON 03.06.1997 I.E. PRIOR TO 1998, WAS NOT CORRECT. THE CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE FIRST DATE POST TO WHICH CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT COULD HAVE TAKEN PLACE FOR THE PROJECT A WAS AFTER 09.06.1999 ONLY THOUGH THE SAID CERTIFICATE WA S ISSUED SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION OF PAYMENT OF CERTAIN CHARGES OF NALA GUTTER. THE CIT(A) THUS, HELD THAT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS REGARD THAT THE FIRST DATE WHEN THE CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT COULD HAVE TAKEN PLACE COULD NOT BE HELD TO BE ON 03.06.1997. FURTHER, ON PERUSAL OF THE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICAT E ISSUED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY I.E. THE PMC REFER S TO THE COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATE DATED 17.04.2004 FOR THE PROJECT COMPRISING OF SIX BUILDINGS WHICH INCLUDED 126 FLATS. THE CIT(A ) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE PROJECT PLAN DID NOT COMMENCE THE CONSTRUCTION WORK UNTIL COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATE DATED 17.04.2004 WHICH ALSO FINDS MENTION IN THE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE DATED 31.03.2008 ISSUED BY THE PMC. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY ITA NO. 1260 /PN/20 1 3 COSMOPOLIS CONSTRUCTION 7 HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. VANDANA PROPERTIES IN ITA NO.3633 OF 2009 AND 4361 OF 2010 . THE CIT(A) NOTED THAT THE SAID PLAN WAS APPROVED ON 17.04.2004 FOR PROJECT A, AGAINST WHICH THE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE HAS BEEN OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSE E. HENCE, THE ASSESSEE HAD ACTUALLY INCURRED THE DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES AFTER 2004 AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE BILLS AND VOUCHERS. THE CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT EVEN OTHERWISE IF THE DATE OF COMMENCEMENT TAKEN AS THAT OF 2001 IN THAT EVENT ALSO, THE PROJECT A HAS BEEN COMPLETED BY THE ASSESSEE PRIOR TO THE STIPULATED DATE I.E. 31.03.2008 . THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT SHOULD BE ADOPTED WHEN THE ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT STARTED I.E. VIDE COMMENCEMENT CERTI FICATE DATED 17.04.2004 AND NOT AS 03.06.1997 . THE SECOND CONTENTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT IT COMPRISED OF TWO PROJECTS I.E. PROJECT A AND B BEING SEPARATE, THE CIT(A) NOTED THAT THE BALANCE AREA OF PLACE WAS 3806 SQ. MTRS., WHICH WAS UNDER UL C REST RICTION AND PLANS FOR THE SAID PROJECT WERE SANCTIONED VIDE APPROVAL DATED 19.11.2006. SINCE THE PROJECT A HAD ALREADY SANCTIONED VIDE APPROVAL DATED 19.11.2006. SINCE THE PROJECT A HAD ALREADY BEEN STARTED THE CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF WORK ON 17.04.2004, WHEN THE OTHER PROJECT B WAS NOT APPROVED, THUS, THE COMMENCEMENT D ATES OF TWO PROJECTS WAS SEPARATE AND TOTALLY DIFFERENT AND THE PROJECTS HAVING BEEN APPROVED SEPARATELY AT DIFFERENT POINTS OF TIME, AND WHERE THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY HAD CONVERTED THE SURPLUS TO VACANT LAND VIDE ORDER DATED 15.10.2005, THE ASSESSEE RECEI VED SEPARATE COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATE DATED 09.11.2006 FOR PROJECT B AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SAID PROJECT B COULD BE COMMENCED ONLY AFTER THE AFORESAID ORDER. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE PUNE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN RAHUL CONSTRUCTI ON CO. VS. ITO IN ITA NO.1250/PN/2009 AND 707/PN/2010 ORDER DATED 30.03.2012 . THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD CONTEMPLATED TWO PROJECTS WHICH WERE SEPARATE AND PROJECT A COMPRISING OF 6 BUILDINGS INCLUDING 126 FLATS WAS AN ITA NO. 1260 /PN/20 1 3 COSMOPOLIS CONSTRUCTION 8 ELIGIBLE PROJECT WHICH HAD COMPLIED WITH ALL THE CONDITIONS AS STIPULATED UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT AND THUS QUALIFIED FOR THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. 6. THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE AFORESAID FINDINGS OF CIT(A). 7. THE F IRS T OBJECTION OF THE REVENUE WAS THAT WHERE THE PROJECT WAS INITIALLY SANCTIONED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY ON 03.06.1997, WHICH WAS PRIOR TO 1998, WHE RE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT WAS ALLOWABLE TO PROJECTS ON OR AFTER 01.10.1998 , THE ASSESSEE W AS NOT ENTITLED TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. AN ALTERNATE PLEA RAISED BY THE REVENUE WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT SINCE THE ENTIRE PROJECT WAS NOT COMPLE TED ON OR BEFORE 31.03.2008. THE OBJECTION WAS RAISED TO THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) IN HOLDING THAT THE PROJECTS A AND B WERE TWO SEPARATE PROJECTS WHEN SANCTION HOLDING THAT THE PROJECTS A AND B WERE TWO SEPARATE PROJECTS WHEN SANCTION WAS ACCORDED VIDE COMMON PLAN BY THE PMC BEFORE 01.04.2004 AND WHERE THE PROJECT WAS NOT COMPLETED BEFORE 31.03.2008, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE SAID DEDUCTION IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IB(10)(A)(I) OF THE ACT . 8. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE TOOK US THROUGH THE FACTUAL ASPECTS OF THE CASE POIN TING OUT THE VARIOUS EVENTS IN RELATION TO THE SANCTIONING OF THE BUILDING PLANS BY REFERRING TO THE VARIOUS PAGES OF THE PAPER BOOK , T HE COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATES ISSUED FROM DATE TO DA TE AND THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE ISSUED FOR THE PROJECT A . IT WAS AL SO STRESSED BY THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE PROJECTS A AND B WERE SEPARATE AND THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT WAS CLAIMED ONLY IN RESPECT OF PROJECT A IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009 - 10 AND 2010 - 11, ITA NO. 1260 /PN/20 1 3 COSMOPOLIS CONSTRUCTION 9 WHEREAS THE PROJECT B TILL DATE IS INCOMPLETE AND THE ASSESSEE FROM YEAR TO YEAR WAS PAYING TAXES ON THE PORTION OF PROFITS ON PROPORTIONATE CONSTRUCTION AND SALE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DENIED THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT ON THE SU RMISE THAT THE PROJECT B WAS NOT COMPLETE, WHEREAS THE BUILDING PLANS FOR PROJECT B CAME INTO FORCE IN 2006 AFTER PASSING OF THE ORDER OF ULCA FOR RELEASE OF LAND IN 2005 I.E. 21.10.2005 . B EFORE THE ORDER PASSED BY ULCA, THE BUILDING B COULD NOT BE SANCTI ON ED AND SINCE THE BUILDING PLAN WAS SANCTIONED ON 09.11.2006 , THE CLAIM WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ONLY IN RESPECT OF PROJECT A AND NOT PROJECT B. 9. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE ON THE OTHER HAND PLACING RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER STRESSED THAT INITIAL BUILDING PLANS WERE SANCTIONED ON 03.06.1997 I.E. THE DATE PRIOR TO WHICH PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT WERE APPLICABLE AND HENCE, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ISSUE ARISING IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS IN RELATION TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. WE PROCEED TO CONSIDER T HE FACTUAL ASPECTS OF THE CA SE IN ORDER TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE I.E. THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF PROJECT A SANCTIONED PRIOR TO PROJECT B, WHICH WAS SANCTIONED ON LATER DATE I.E. AFTER THE RECEIPT OF ORDER OF ULC BY REL EASE OF PLOT FOR CONSTRUCTING THE PROJECT B. THE FACTUAL ASPECTS OF THE CASE WE RE THAT THE COMPANY SHARAN ESTATES PVT. LTD. HAD PURCHASED UNDIVIDED SHARES OF VARIOUS OWNERS OF LAND AT SURVEY NO.186, YERWADA, PUNE ADMEASURING 15900 SQ. MTRS. VIDE AGREEMENT OF SALE DATED ITA NO. 1260 /PN/20 1 3 COSMOPOLIS CONSTRUCTION 10 22.09.1994 , 27.10.1994, 18.08.1995 AND 09.01.1996 . THE SAID LAND WAS SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF URBAN LAND CEILING & REGULATION ACT, 1976. THE SAID CONCERN SOUGHT APPROVAL FROM PMC FOR DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE RESIDENTIAL BUIL DINGS ON THE SAID LAND TO BE DEVELOPED AS PROJECTS A AND B. THE SAID DIVISION WAS BASED ON THE STATUTORY PROVISION UNDER THE ULC A, 1976 AND THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE WORK. THE PROJECT A WAS ENVISAGED AND SANCTIONED AS PER ORDER UNDER ULCA, DATED 22.11.1998 , UNDER WHICH AN AREA OF 12094 SQ. MTRS. WAS EXEMPTED. THE BALANCE FOR THE ABOVE AREA SANCTIONED ON 14.07.2001 . THE FIRST BUILDING PLAN WAS SANCTIONED ON 03.06.1997, UNDER WHICH ONE OF THE CONDITIONS WAS TO OBTAIN NOC FOR NALLA / GUTTER. THE COPY OF THE SAID SANCTIONED PLAN IS PLACED AT PAGE 38 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THEREAFTER, THE PAYMENT FOR THE SAID NALLA / GUTTER WAS MADE ON 26.04.1999 AND THE COPY OF THE SAME IS PLACED AT PAGE 41 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE PMC AGAIN ISSUED A COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATE NO.2 141 DATED 09.06.1999 AFTER THE OBJECTION WAS MET BY THE ASSESSEE. THE COPY OF THE SAID COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATE ISSUED MET BY THE ASSESSEE. THE COPY OF THE SAID COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE PMC IS PLACED AT PAGE 40 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE SECOND COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATE WAS ALSO ISSUED WITH TH E CONDITION MEANING NALLA / GUTTER FOR RAIN WATER WAS TO BE REMOVED AFTER THE PAYMENT OF CHARGES AND THE ACTUAL COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATE WAS ISSUED ON 17.04.2004 , COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE 43 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US IS TWO - FOLD IN THIS REGARD . THOUGH THE COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATE , IF ANY, ISSUED PRIOR TO FULFILLING THE CONDITION OF NALLA / GUTTER FOR RAIN WATER, AND THE RESTRICTION IMPOSED BY THE ULCA HAVING NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH, THE CLEAR AREA OF 12094 SQ. MTRS. WAS A VAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE ONLY WHEN THIRD COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATE WAS OBTAINED ON 14.07.2001. THE COMPANY M/S. SHARAN ESTATES PVT. LTD. , DID NOT COMMENCE THE CONSTRUCTION AGAINST WHICH AND THE AOP WAS FORMED ON 19.04.2004, WHICH WAS FORMED AS PRE - ITA NO. 1260 /PN/20 1 3 COSMOPOLIS CONSTRUCTION 11 CONDIT ION TO THE PLANS SANCTIONED ON 17.04.2004 . THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US WAS THAT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE INITIAL SANCTION FOR COMMENCEMENT OF THE PROJECT BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY WAS GIVEN ON 03.06.1997 I.E. PRIOR TO 1998 WAS NOT CORRECT, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES. 11. WE ARE IN CONFORMITY WITH THE FINDINGS OF CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD THAT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT FIRST DATE WHEN THE CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT COULD HAVE TAKEN PLACE WOULD BE 03.06.1997, WAS NOT CORRECT. THE CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF PROJECT A MADE ONLY BY WAY OF COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATE DATED 09.06.199 9 , THOUGH THE SAME WAS SUBJECT TO FULFILLMENT OF CONDITION OF PAYMENT OF CERTAIN CHARGES OF NALLA / GUTTER. T HE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US WAS THAT THOUGH THE COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATE WAS ISSUED ON 09.06.1999 , BUT NO CONSTRUCTION WAS STARTED AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE FACT THAT NO EXPENSES FOR CONSTRUCTION HAD BEEN DEBITED AND FURTHER, THE PROJECT FACT THAT NO EXPENSES FOR CONSTRUCTION HAD BEEN DEBITED AND FURTHER, THE PROJECT HAS BEEN UNDERT AKEN BY THE AOP, WHICH CAME INTO EXISTENCE ONLY ON 19.04.2004 . ANOTHER PLEA RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD WAS THAT THE ACTUAL COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATE WAS ISSUED BY THE PMC ON 17.04.2004 , AND BECAUSE OF THE SAID PRE - CONDITION BEING FULFILLED, THE AOP WAS FORMED ON 19.04.2004. IN ORDER TO ADJUDICATE THE S AID DISPUTE OF DAT E OF CERTIFICATE OF THE PROJECT, RECOURSE IS MADE TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT . THE CLAUSE (A) TO SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT TALKS OF VARIOUS DATES ON WHICH THE UNDERTAKING COMMENCED DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSING PROJECT. IN CASE THE SAID COMMENCEMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT IS ON OR AFTER 01.10.1998 AND WHERE THE HOUSING PROJECT HAD BEEN APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY BE FORE THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL, 2004, THEN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SAID PROJECT IS TO BE COMPLETED ON OR BEFORE 31.03.2008 AS PER CLAUSE (I) ITA NO. 1260 /PN/20 1 3 COSMOPOLIS CONSTRUCTION 12 THEREUNDER. AS PER CLAUSE (II) THEREUNDER, WHERE THE HOUSING PROJECT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY ON AFTE R 0 1 .04.2004, BUT NOT LATER ON 31.03.2005, THEN THE SAME HAS TO BE COMPLETED WITHIN FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE HOUSING PROJECT I S APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY. THE EXPLANATION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10)(A) OF THE ACT FURTHER PROVIDES THAT IN CASES WHERE THE APPROVAL IN RESPECT OF HOUSING PROJECT IS OBTAINED MORE THAN ONCE, SUCH HOUSING PROJECT SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN APPROVED ON THE DATE ON WHICH THE BUILDING PLAN OF SUCH HOUSING PROJECT IS FIRST APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AU THORITY. THERE ARE OTHER CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN SECTION I.E. IN RESPECT OF PROJECT BEING A SIZE OF PLOT OF LAND GENERALLY A MINIMUM AREA OF ONE ACRE AND THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS BEING NOT EXCEEDING THE BUILT UP AREA OF 1500 SQ. FT. AND CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS ON THE COMMERCIAL AREA. ADMITTEDLY, ALL THE OTHER CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT STAND FULFILLED I.E. THE PROJECT IS ON AN AREA EXCEEDING ONE ACRE AND BUILT UP AREA OF THE UNITS COMPLETED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE LESS THAN 1500 SQ.FT. THE QUESTION WHICH ARISES COMPLETED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE LESS THAN 1500 SQ.FT. THE QUESTION WHICH ARISES BEFORE US IS FIRST THE DATE ON WHICH THE PROJECT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY , COMMENCED DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSING PROJECT AND SECONDLY, THE DATE ON WHICH THE SAID PROJECT HAS BEEN COMPLETED. 1 2 . THE SECOND ASPECT OF THE ISSUE RAISED BEFORE US IS THAT WHERE INITIALLY THE PROJECT WAS ENVISAGED TO COMPRISE OF PROJECTS A AND B AND WHERE THE PROJEC T B HAS NOT COMPLETED THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTIO N, CAN THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE AC T BE ALLOWED TO THE PROJECT A OR THE SAME HAS TO BE DENIED. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT SINCE THE SANCTION TO CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS A AND B WAS GIVEN ON 03.06.19 97 . HOWEVER, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE SAID PLEA OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN VIEW OF THE CONDITIONS LAID ITA NO. 1260 /PN/20 1 3 COSMOPOLIS CONSTRUCTION 13 DOWN IN THE SAID SANCTION ITSELF I.E. IT WAS SUBJECT TO APPROVAL UNDER ULCA, 1976. THE SURPLUS LAND UNDER ULCA, 1976 WAS DECLARED BY THE COMPETENT AUT HORITY I.E. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, PUNE AGGLOMERATION VIDE ORDER DATED 22.12.1998 AT 3806.75 SQ. MTRS., THE EARLIER ULCA ORDER DATED 15.12.1997 HAD ONLY SPECIFIED THE AREA FOR ROAD AND OPEN SPACE. IN VIEW THEREOF, THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE COMMENCED THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT A ONLY AFTER ULCA ORDER DATED 22.12.1998, TILL THEN THE AREA FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PROJECT B WAS NOT REGULARIZED AND HENCE, THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE OBSERVATIONS OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS REGARD THAT THE PROJECT ENVISAGED BY TH E ASSESSEE WAS BOTH A AND B. AFTER THE DECLARATION OF THE SURPLUS LAND, THE COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATE WAS ISSUED BY PMC ON 09.06.1999 WITH THE CONDITION THAT NALLA / GUTTER FOR RAIN WATER, WHICH WAS TO BE REMOVED AFTER PAYMENT OF CHARGES. IN VIEW OF THE T OTALITY OF THE ABOVE SAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN VIEW OF THE RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED BY ULCA, 1976 AND ALSO THE CONDITIONS IMPOSED BY THE PMC IN THE ORIGINAL SANCTION DATED 03.06.1997 , WE HOLD THAT ONLY AFTER THE CLEAR AREA OF ORIGINAL SANCTION DATED 03.06.1997 , WE HOLD THAT ONLY AFTER THE CLEAR AREA OF 12094 SQ. MTRS., WAS AVA ILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE PURSUANT TO THE ORDER DATED 22.12.1998 , DECLAR ING THE SURPLUS LAND , THE SANCTION OF PMC DATED 09.06.1999 FOR PROJECT A IS TO BE CONSIDERED. IT MAY BE REITERATED HERE THAT THE PROJECT B IS NOT ENVISAGED IN THE SANCTION WHICH WAS GI VEN BY THE PMC ON 09.06.1999 . THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THIRD COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATE WAS OBTAINED ON 14.07.2011 . HOWEVER, NO CONSTRUCTION WAS COMMENCED BY THE COMPANY SHARAN ESTATES PVT. LTD. AND THEREAFTER, ANOTHER PLAN WAS SANCTIONED ON 17.04. 2004 BEFORE FORMATION OF AOP ON 19.04.2004 . THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD IS THAT THE PLAN WAS SANCTIONED ON 17.04.2004, UNDER WHICH THE CONSTRUCTION STARTED AND HENCE, IT IS GOVERNED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IB(10)(A)(II) OF THE ACT . HOWEVER, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE. THE EXPLANATION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10)(A) OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT ITA NO. 1260 /PN/20 1 3 COSMOPOLIS CONSTRUCTION 14 IN CASES WHERE THE APPROVAL IN RESPECT OF HOUSING PROJECT S ARE OBTAINED MORE THAN ONCE, THEN SUCH HOUSING PROJECTS SHALL BE DEEME D TO HAVE BEEN APPROVED ON THE DATE ON WHICH THE BUILDING PLAN WAS FIRST APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY . THE BUILDING PLANS IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE AFTER THE DECLARATION OF SURPLUS LAND BY THE ULCA WAS FIRST APPROVED ON 0 9.06.1999 WITH CERTAIN CONDITIONS , WHICH WERE LATER FULFILLED BY THE ASSESSEE. MERELY BECAUSE ANOTHER PLAN FOR COMMENCEMENT WHICH WAS SANCTIONED ON A LATER DATE I.E. 14.07.2001 AND 19.04.2004 RELATES TO THE INITIAL PLAN SANCTIONED ON 09.06.1999 AND IN VIEW OF EXPLANATION TO SECTION 80IB( 10)(A) OF THE ACT , WE HOLD THAT THE PLANS IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE TO CONSTRUCT PROJECT A W ERE APPROVED ON 09.06.1999 SINCE THESE WERE SANCTIONED ON OR AFTER FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER, 1998, BUT BEFORE FIRST DAY OF APRIL, 2004, THEN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IB(10)(A)(I) OF THE ACT ARE APPLICABLE AND THE ASSESSEE HAD TO COMPLETE THE CONSTRUCTION ON OR BEFORE 31.03.2008. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE COPY OF OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE IN LOCAL LANGUAGE DATED 31.03.2008 PLACED AT PAGE 72 O F OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE IN LOCAL LANGUAGE DATED 31.03.2008 PLACED AT PAGE 72 O F THE PAPER BOOK . HOWEVER, ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE SAID DOCUMENT IS NOT AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND IT IS NOT CLEAR AS TO WHETHER THE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE IS GIVEN FOR 122 FLATS HAS BEEN COMPLETED BY THE ASSESSEE BY 31.03.2008. ACCORDINGLY, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE VIS - - VIS DOCUMENT PLACED AT PAGE 72 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IN CASE, THE BUILDING IN PROJECT A HAS BEEN COMPLETED BY 31.03.2008, THEN THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB( 10) OF THE ACT. IN CASE THE BUILDINGS ARE NOT COMPLETELY CONSTRUCTED BY 31.03.2008, THEN THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED ONLY TO THE PROPORTIONATE DEDUCTION ON THE PORTION OF BUILDING I.E. FLATS WHICH HAVE COMPLETED CONSTRUCTION BY 31.03.2008 AS THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE CONSTRUCTION BY 31.03.2008 . THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL BEFORE US IS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 WITH YEAR ENDING 31.03.2009 . THE NECESSARY DETAILS ITA NO. 1260 /PN/20 1 3 COSMOPOLIS CONSTRUCTION 15 COULD BE VERIFIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS REGARD AND IN CASE FOUND TO BE IN ORDER , IN LINE WITH OUR DIRECTIONS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL COMPUTE DEDUCTION CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF COMPLETED BUILDINGS OR PROPORTIONATE DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF COMPLETED UNITS. 13. THE SECOND STAND OF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER IN REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ORIGINAL PLAN WAS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF PROJECTS A AND B AND WHERE PROJECT B HAS NOT BEEN COMPLETED BY 31.03.2008 , THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT DO ES NOT STAND, IN VIEW OF THE LAND ON WHICH PROJECT B PLANNED WAS UNDER THE ULCA, 1976. VIDE ORDER DATED 22.12.1998, ONLY THE AREA ON WHICH PROJECT A WAS COMPLETED WAS RELEASED AND THE LAND ON WHICH PROJECT B IS BEING CONSTRUCTED WAS RELEASED ON 21.10.2005 . H ENCE, BEFORE THE ORDER OF ULCA, 1976 , WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE STAND OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN HOLDING THAT THE PROJECT B WAS ALREADY ENVISAGED AS PER THE SANCTIONED PLAN DATED 03.06.1997 . A LTHOUGH ALREADY ENVISAGED AS PER THE SANCTIONED PLAN DATED 03.06.1997 . A LTHOUGH THERE IS SANCTION OF PLAN ON 03.06.1997 , BUT THE SAME WA S WITH CONDITIONS I.E. OBTAINING DECLARATION UNDER THE ULCA, 1976 AND THE SAID DECLARATION HAVING BEEN MADE ON 22.11.1998, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE STAND OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS REGARD THAT THE PLANS WERE SANCTIONED ON 03.06.1997. THE LEARNED AUTH ORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. ASHRAY PREMISES (P.) LTD. (2013) 34 TAXMANN.COM 165 (BOM) FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT DOES NOT DETERMINE THE STAR T OF PROJECT AND IT IS ONLY THE COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATE WHICH DETERMINES. WE FIND SUPPORT FROM THE SAID RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT. WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO COMPUTE THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT IN LINE WITH ITA NO. 1260 /PN/20 1 3 COSMOPOLIS CONSTRUCTION 16 OUR DIRECTIONS AFTER AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 1 4 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 31 ST DAY OF DECEMBER , 2015. SD/ - SD/ - (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE ; DATED : 31 ST DECEMBER , 2015 . GCVSR / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE AP PELLANT ; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. ( ) / THE CIT (A) - II , PUNE ; 4. / THE CIT - II , PUNE ; 4. / THE CIT - II , PUNE ; 5. , , / DR B , ITAT, PUNE; 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER , // TRUE COPY // / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE