Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6580 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
CRN Number
Duration Of Justice
3 year(s) 1 month(s) 23 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
08-09-2021
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
DB-B
Assessment Year
2013-2014
Appeal Filed On
16-07-2018
Judgement Text
ITA NOS 956 AND OTHERS MANJEERA PROJECTS HYDERABAD. PAGE 1 OF 32 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD B BENCH, HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO S . 1 554 , 956 / HYD/201 8 , 1599/HYD/2019 & 15/HYD/2020 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2013-14 TO 2016-17 MANJEERA PROJECTS HYDERABAD PAN:AAOFM0872C VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6(1) HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SRI K.C. DEVDAS REVENUE BY : SRI Y.V.S.T. SAI, DR DATE OF HEARING: 26/08/2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 08/09/2021 ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, J.M. THESE ASSESSEES FOUR APPEALS ARISE AGAINST THE CIT (A) 6 HYDERABADS SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 24.1.2017, 16.0 3.2018, 1.3.2019 AND 30.10.2019 IN A.YS 2013-14 TO 2016-17 INVOLVING PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 ( IN SHORT THE ACT), RESPECTIVELY. HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. CASE FILES PERUSED. 2. IT EMERGES OUT AT THE OUTSET THAT THE ASSESSEES TWIN APPEALS NO.1554/HYD/2018 AND 1599/HYD/2019 SUFFER F ROM 453 AND 128 DAYS DELAY IN FILING. IT HAS FILED RESPECTI VE CONDONATION PETITION (S)/AFFIDAVIT(S) DATED 16.10.2018 AND 24.1 0.2019 PLEADING THEREIN THAT IT WAS ON ACCOUNT OF RESIGNATION OF TH E TAX ITA NOS 956 AND OTHERS MANJEERA PROJECTS HYDERABAD. PAGE 2 OF 32 CONSULTANT/EXPERT AND ON ACCOUNT OF COMMUNICATION G AP AND THAT THE DELAY(S) ON THE ISSUE HAS BEEN CAUSED. REVENUES CASE, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED ON THE TWIN CORRESPONDENCE(S) DA TED 27.2.2017 AND 1.3.2017 REGARDING RECOVERY OF TAXES AND PENALT Y PROCEEDINGS AS AGAINST THE CORRESPONDING APPEAL(S) FILED ON 31. 7.2018 AND 1.11.2019 RESPECTIVELY. LEARNED CIT-DRS VEHEMENT C ONTENTION BEFORE US IS THAT THE IMPUGNED DELAY HAS NOT BEEN E XPLAINED MUCH LESS THAN OF EACH AND EVERY DAY AS PER SECTION 5 OF THE INDIAN LIMITATION ACT. 3. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO TH E RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND SEE NO REASON TO EXPRESS OUR AGREEM ENT WITH THE REVENUES STAND. THE ASSESSEES TWIN CONDONATION PE TITION(S)/AFFIDAVIT(S) HAVE ALREADY ATTRIBUTED THE REASON OF THE IMPUGNED DELAY(S) TO ITS TAX CONSULTANTS RESIGNATION AND COMMUNICATION GAP AT V ARIOUS LEVELS. HON'BLE APEX COURTS LANDMARK DECISION OF COLLECTOR OF LAND ACQUISITION VS. MST KATIJI & ORS ON 19 FEBRUARY, 1987, AIR 1353 /1987 SCR (2) 387 AND UNIVERSITY OF DELHI VS. UNION OF INDIA CIVIL AP PEAL NOS.9488- 9489/2019 DATED 17.12.2019 SETTLE THE LAW THAT ALL TECHNICAL ASPECTS MUST MAKE WAY FOR THE CAUSE OF SUBSTANTIVE JUSTICE PROVIDED THE ASSESSEE OFFERS COGENT EXPLANATION REGARDING THE DE LAY IN ISSUE. WE THEREFORE, CONDONE THE RESPECTIVE DELAY(S) OF 453 A ND 128 DAYS IN THE A.YS 2013-14 AND 2015-16 APPEALS ITA NOS.1554/HYD/2 018 AND 1599/HYD/2019. THESE CASES ARE TAKEN UP FOR ADJUDIC ATION ON MERITS. 4. IT NEXT EMERGES THAT THE ASSESSEES IDENTICAL SO LE OF SUBSTANTIVE GROUND RAISED IN ALL THE INSTANT APPEAL S CHALLENGES CORRECTNESS OF THE LEARNED LOWER AUTHORITIES ACTION DISALLOWING ITS 80IB(10) DEDUCTION CLAIM(S) OF RS.4,06,38,140/-, RS .25,31,71,497/- , RS.41,28,961/- AND RS.10,74,831/- ASSESSMENT YEAR-W ISE RESPECTIVELY. ITA NOS 956 AND OTHERS MANJEERA PROJECTS HYDERABAD. PAGE 3 OF 32 BOTH THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES INVITED OUT ATTENT ION TO CIT (A)S DETAILED DISCUSSION IN THE LEAD A.Y 2014-15S APPEA L ITA NO.956/HYD/2018 AFFIRMING THE ASSESSING OFFICERS A CTION TO THIS EFFECT AS UNDER: 5.0 THE ASSESSEE RAISED AS MANY AS SEVEN GROUNDS O F APPEAL AGAINST THE DENIAL OF EXEMPTION ULS.80IB(1O) OF THE ACT AMO UNTING TO RS. 4,06,38,140/-. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE TAKEN UP F OR DISCUSSION AND ADJUDICATION IN 'THE FORTHCOMING PARAGRAPHS OF THIS ORDER. 6.0 BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE F IRM IS INTO THE BUSINESS OF DEVELOPING HOUSING PROJECTS AFTER OBTAINING NECE SSARY APPROVAL FROM GHMC. BASED ON THE REPORT OF DVO, THE AO HAS DISALL OWED THE CLAIM MADE U/S. 80IB(10) OF THE ACT AS THE SAID PROJECT W AS NOT COMPLETED WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT AND HAS ALSO NOT F ULFILLED THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT FOR GRANT OF THE SAID DEDUCTION. THE DVO IN HIS REPORT DATED 20.03.2013 STATED THAT ONLY 241 FLATS WERE COMPLETED AND 20 FLATS WERE MORE THAN 1500 SFT EAC H. RELYING ON THE PRIMARY CONDITIONS FOR ELIGIBILITY OF DEDUCTION THA T THE BUILTUP AREA OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS SHOULD NOT EXCEED 1500 SFT AND TH E PROJECT HAS TO BE COMPLETED WITHIN 5 YEARS FROM THE DATED OF APPROVAL GRANTED BY GHMC, THE AO DISALLOWED THE DEDUCTION ULS. SOME! 0) OF TH E ACT THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THIS REGARD IS R EPRODUCED BELOW FOR READY REFERENCE: '4.10 IN 'HE ABOVE MENTIONED BOLD AND UNDERLINED PA RT 'HOUSING PROJECT' IS THE SUBJECT TO BOTH THE PREDICATES, 'SHOULD BE ON MINIMUM AREA OF ONE ACRE AND SHOULD HAVE DWELLING UNITS WITH A MAXIMU M BUILT UP AREA OF 1000 SQ.FT)'. THEREFOR THIS MAKES THE LEGISLATIVE INTENTION VERY CLEAR THAT IT IS IN THE HOUSING PROJECT WITH RESIDENTIAL UNITS HA VING BUILTUP AREA OF 1500 SQ.FT (IN THE CASE OF HYDERABAD): BELOW AND LE AVES NOTHING TO THE IMAGINATION OR SPECULATION OR INTERPRETATION TO CON SIDER THE BENEFIT OF THE PART OF THE PROJECT; 4. 11 SIMILAR IS THE CASE WITH THE CONDITION THAT T HE HOUSING PROJECT HAS 10 BE COMPLETED WITHIN FIVE YEARS, I.E., BEFORE 31. 03,20L3. IN THE INSTANT CASE, HOUSING PROJECT MEANS THE ENTIRE HOUSING PROJ ECT AS APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY AND NO/PART OR PIECE OF THE HOU SING PROJECT. 4.12 WHEN THE STATUTE IS GIVING A BENEFIT, IT IS FO R A PURPOSE. THE PURPOSE THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION ULS.801B(1O) IS TO PROMOTE HOUSING ON-A LARGE SCALE-A MAKE PO USING AVAILABLE AND AFFORDABLE. BUT WHEN THE BENEFIT IS BEING GIVEN SOME CONDITIONS, IT MEANS THAT THE STAT UTE DEMANDS SOME COMMITMENT FROM THE ASSESSEE, THAT THE STATED PURPO SE FOR WHICH THE BENEFIT IS GIVEN IS REALISED AT THE EARLIEST AND TH IS CONDITION ALSO ACTS AS A PROTECTION 10 THE FLAT PURCHASERS AS IT ENSURES THA T THE PROJECT ON WHICH BENEFIT IS BEING ENJOYED BY THE ASSESSEE, IS COMPLE TED IN TIME. 4.13 WHEN THERE IS NO AMBIGUITY IN THE PROVISIONS O F STATUTE IT CANNOT BE INTERPRETED IN A DIFFERENT MANNER TO CONFER BENEFIT ON THE ASSESSEE. FOR SUCH PROPOSITION, RELIANCE IS PLACED UPON THE DECIS ION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT ILL CASE OF IPCA LABORATORIES LTD VS. DCIT 2661TR 521. THE PRINCIPLE OF BENEFICIAL INTERPRETATION WOULD AP PLY ONLY IN A CASE WHERE THE COURT IS IN DOUBT ABOUT TRUE SCOPE AND AM BIT OF THE PROVISION. WHEN A MEANING OF THE WORD IS CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS THE COURT HAS TO GIVE EFFECT TO IT WHATEVER BE THE CONSEQUENCES, IN THIS CONTEXT, RELIANCE IS ITA NOS 956 AND OTHERS MANJEERA PROJECTS HYDERABAD. PAGE 4 OF 32 PLACED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF INDIAN RAYON CORPORATION LTD VS. CIT, 231 ITR 26. 4.14 THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF PETRON EN GG. CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD VS. CBDT 175 ITR 523 HELD THAT LIBERAL INTERPRE TATION OF AN INCENTIVE PROVISION CAN BE RESORTED TO ONLY WHEN IT IS POSSIB LE WITHOUT IMPAIRING THE LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENT AND THE SPIRIT OF THE PROVI SION. WHERE THE PHRASEOLOGY OF A PARTICULAR PROVISION TAKES WITHIN ITS SWEEP THE TRANSACTIONS WHICH ARE TAXABLE, IT IS NOT/OR THE CO URTS TO STRAIN AND STRESS THE LANGUAGE SO AS TO ENABLE THE TAXPAYER 10 ESCAPE THE TAX. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT, AGAIN IN CASE OF PANDIAN CHEMICALS L TD VS. CIT, 262 ITR 278 OBSERVED THAT RULES OF INTERPRETATION WOULD COM E INTO PLAY ONLY IF THERE IS ANY DOUBT WITH REGARD TO THE EXPRESS LANGU AGE USED IN THE PROVISION. WHERE THE WORDS ARE UNEQUIVOCAL, THERE I S NO SCOPE FOR IMPORTING THE RULE OF LIBERAL INTERPRETATION OF AN INCENTIVE PROVISION. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. N.C.BUDHAR AJA AND ANOTHER, 204 ITR 412 HELD THAT LIBERAL INTERPRETATION OF AN INCENTIVE PROVISION SHOULD NOT DO VIOLENCE TO PLAIN LANGUAGE. THE OBJEC T OF AN ENACTMENT SHOULD BE GATHERED FROM A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF THE LANGUAGE USED THEREIN. 4.15 CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID PRINC IPLE OF JAW, THE LANGUAGE USED IN CLAUSE (A) OF SECTION 80IB(10) IS CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS ENOUGH TO LEAVE ANY SCOPE FOR INTERPRETING IT IN A DIFFERENT MANNER TO CONFER BENEFIT UPON THE ASSESSEE. 4.16 THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE ARE OF NOT MUCH HELP TO IT IF CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF THE PRINCIPLES LAID D OWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT AS DISCUSSED HEREIN BEFORE. 4. 17. THE ITAT, HYDERABAD IN A RECENT DECISION IN THE CASE OF M/S. SAINATH ESTATES P LTD HAS HELD THAT IN CASE OF THE NONFULFILLMENT OF THE CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS CONDITIONS OF ELIGIBILITY, T HE DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(L0) HAS TO BE DISALLOWED. 4.18 NOTWITHSTANDING THE ABOVE, EVEN IF IT IS HELD THAT THE ASSESSES IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) EVEN IF THE HOU SING PROJECT IS NOT COMPLETED BEFORE THE SPECIFIED TIME LIMIT, THE CLAI M OF THE ASSESSEE THAT PRO RATA DEDUCTION MAY BE ALLOWED FOR FLATS HAVING BUILT UP AREA LESS THAN 1500 SFT; AS ALLOWED IN VARIOUS TRIBUNAL ORDER S, IS NOT TENABLE. THE OBJECT OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IB (10) IS TO AUGMENT AFFORDABLE DWELLING UNITS. BY HAVING VERY SIGNIFICANT NUMBER O F FLATS EXCEEDING 1500 SQ FT, HAS THE ASSESSES SUCCEEDED TO AUGMENT AFFORD ABLE DWELLING UNITS. THE REPLY TO THIS QUESTION HAS TO BE IN THE NEGATIV E. SOME LIMIT HAS TO BE DRAWN LIP TO ENSURE THAT THE BASIC CHARACTER OF THE PROJECT CONTINUES TO REMAIN IN HARMONY WITH THE OBJECT OF THE TAX INCENT IVE I.E, AUGMENTING AFFORDABLE DWELLING UNITS. FURTHER, IT NEEDS TO BE EMPHATICALLY STATED THAT PRO RATA DEDUCTION HAS TO BE RULED OUT BECAUSE IF T HAT IS PERMITTED, SOME ASSESSES MAY CONSTRUCT SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF FLATS EXCEEDING 1500 SQ FT. AND MAY CLAIM DEDUCTION WITHOUT SERVING THE PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION. LIKEWISE, THE FLATS WHICH EXCEED 1500 SQFT. ALSO HA VE TO BE LEFT OF THE PURVIEW OF THE DEDUCTION. IN THE PRESENT CASE, SUCH DEDUCTION TO BE ASSESSEE WILL NOT SERVE THE PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLAT ION. 4.19 SIMILARLY, THE CONDITION PRESCRIBED IN SEC.80I B(10)(F) THAT IN A CASE WHERE A RESIDENTIAL UNIT IS ALLOTTED TO A PERSON BE ING AN INDIVIDUAL, NO OTHER RESIDENTIAL UNIT IN SUCH HOUSING PROJECT IS A LLOTTED TO THE INDIVIDUAL OR THE SPOUSE HAS NOT BEEN COMPLIED TO THIS CASE. ITA NOS 956 AND OTHERS MANJEERA PROJECTS HYDERABAD. PAGE 5 OF 32 5. AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THERE IS NO AMBIGUITY IN INC OME TAX PROVISIONS WITH REGARD TO THE CONDITIONS TO BE FULFILLED BY TH E ASSESSEE TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 801B(10). AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FULFILLED THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN, THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF RS. 4,06,38,140/-U/S. 801B(10) IS DISALLOWED AND BROUGHT TO TAX. ' 6 .1 IN THIS REGARD, IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE ISSUE UNDER DISPUTE IN THE IMPUGNED AY 2014-15 IS NOT NEW TO THE CASE OF T HE ASSESSEE IN AS MUCH AS THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/ S, 80(IB)(10) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF INCOME DERIVED FROM THE PROJECT U NDER REFERENCE STARTING FROM THE AY 2009-10. FURTHER, RIGHT FROM THE INITIA L AY 2009-10 ONWARDS, THE DEPARTMENT HAS DISAGREED WITH THE ASSESSEE'S CO NTENTION WITH REGARD TO ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(LO) OF THE A CT, MORE SPECIFICALLY, ON THE ISSUE OF DATE OF COMPLETION OF THE HOUSING PROJ ECT-FURTHER, ON APPEAL TO CTT(A) FOR VARIOUS AYS 200910 TO 201314, THE A SSESSEE'S CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80LB(1O) WAS DENIED AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WENT IN FURTHER APPEALS BEFORE THE HON 'BLE ITAT AND THE SA ME ATE PENDING FOR DISPOSAL AS ALL DATE. 6.2 AS THE FACTS AND LEGAL ISSUE WITH REGARD TO ALL OWABILITY OF DEDUCTION ULS.80IB(1O) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED AY 2014-15 ARE AKIN TO FACTS AND LEGAL ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE EARLIER AYS, BY FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSISTENCY, I WOULD LIKE TO PLACE REL IANCE ON THE DECISION OF MY PREDECESSOR IN THE CASE OF THE SAME ASSESSEE FOR THE AY 2011-12. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE DECISION OF CIT(A) IN ASSES SEE'S OWN CASE IN ITA NO.1395/14-15/CIT(A)-VI/15-16, DATED 24.08,2015 FOR AY 2011-12 IS REPRODUCED BELOW FOR READY REFERENCE: 'DECISION: 06.0. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT HAVE BEEN CO NSIDERED. THE HOUSING PROJECT WAS GRANTED APPROVAL ON 04,02.2008 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF 12 RESIDENTIAL BLOCKS (A TO L). FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, DEDUCTION UNDER SEC 80IB(1O) WAS CLAIMED ON PROJECT COMPLETIO N METHOD (G,H,I,J 96.80% AND F, K, L (51.17% COMPLETE) AND REVENUE WA S RECOGNISED IN RESPECT OF 7 BLOCKS G, H, I. J (4 BLOCKS UNDER PHA SE-L-A) AND F, K. L (3 BLOCKS IN PHASE-L-B). 06.1 FOR A CLAIM TO BE CONSIDERED FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10), THE HOUSING PROJECT THAT WAS GIVEN AN APPROVAL ON 04.02.2008 HA D TO BE COMPLETED BY 31.03.2013. THE DATE OF COMPLETION WOULD BE TAKE N TO BE [REFER SUB- CLAUSE (II) OF EXPLANATION TO SEC 80IB(10) THE DATE ON WHICH THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF SUCH HOUSING P ROJECT IS ISSUED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY. IN THIS LIGHT, THE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION OBTAINED BY THE APPELLANT WITH REFERENCE TO THE HOUSING PROJECT WAS EXAMINED AND IF IS SEEN THAT WITH RESPECT TO: (A) BLOCK G, H, I, J, GHM.C HAD ISSUED A PARTIAL OC CUPANCY CERTIFICATE ON 29,03.2012. THEREFORE. THE CONSTRUCTION OF THOSE BL OCKS CAN BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN COMPLETED BEFORE THE SPECIFIED DATE. (B) BLOCK F, K, L, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE COMPLIANCE WAS MADE AS PER REQUIREMENTS OF GHMC AND AN APPLICATION FOR OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE WAS MADE ON 30.03.20/3 AND PARTIAL OCCUPANCY CERTIF ICATE WAS ISSUED ON 07.10.2014. BUT THE CERTIFICATE DATED 7.10.14 RE CORDS THAT THE BUILDING COMPLETION NOTICE WAS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT (A SSESSEE) ONLY ON 16.09.2014. (C) BLOCK A,D,E THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE COM PLIANCE WAS MADE (IS PER REQUIREMENTS OF GHMC AND AN APPLICATION FOR OCC UPANCY CERTIFICATE WAS MADE ON 30.03.2013 AND PARTIAL OCCUPANCY CERTIF ICATE WAS ISSUED ON 02.09.2014. BUT THE CERTIFICATE DATED 02.09.14 R ECORDS THAT THE ITA NOS 956 AND OTHERS MANJEERA PROJECTS HYDERABAD. PAGE 6 OF 32 BUILDING COMPLETION NOTICE WAS SUBMITTED BY THE APP LICANT (ASSESSEE) ONLY ON 04.07.2014. (D) FOR BLOCKS B & C, THE APPELLANT HAS NOT GIVEN A NY DETAILS NOR HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10). IT IS THEREFORE PRE SUMED THAT FOR THE 2 BLOCKS, CONSTRUCTION WAS NOT COMPLETED. 06.2 THUS, FOR BLOCKS, F K. L & A, D. E, NOT ONLY C OMPLETION CERTIFICATES WERE ISSUED AFTER THE SPECIFIED DATE I.E. 31.03.201 3, EVEN THE APPLICATION FOR THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE WAS MADE AFTER THAT DATE, MEANING THEREBY THE BLOCKS DID NOT GET COMPLETED BEFORE THE SPECIFI ED DATE I.E. 31.03.2013 WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 80IB(10). IT IS THERE FORE, HELD THAT CONSTRUCTION FOR THE BLOCKS F,K.L & A.D, E WAS NOT COMPLETED. 07.0 THUS OUT OF THE TOTAL 12 BLOCKS, CONSTRUCTION WAS NOT COMPLETED IN 8 BLOCKS AND FOR THIS REASON ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80FB(10) IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF ITAT IN THE CAS E OF SAINATH ESTATES PVT LTD THAT HELD THAT THE USE OF WORD 'SHALL' IN EXPLA NATION II MADE THE FURNISHING OF COMPLETION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY MANDATORY 10 PROVE THAT DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTIO N OF THE HOUSING PROJECT IS COMPLETE IN ALL RESPECT. IT WENT ON TO STATE THAT 'AS HAS ALREADY BEEN STATED HEREIN BEFORE THE AFORESAID AMENDED PRO VISION WAS INTRODUCED TO THE STATUE BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2004 W ITH EFFECT FROM 01.04.2005. EARLIER TO IT, THE PROVISION AS CONTAIN ED U/S 8018(10) DID NOT REQUIRE FURNISHING OF A COMPLETION CERTIFICATE ISSU ED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY. THEREFORE, THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE IN BRIN GING SUCH A PROVISION REQUIRING PRODUCTION OF COMPLETION CERTIFICATE ISSU ED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY CANNOT BE OVERLOOKED OR BRUSHED ASIDE FOR CONFERRIN G A BENEFIT UPON THE ASSESSEE ONLY FOR THE SAKE OF LIBERAL INTERPRETATIO N. THE REQUIREMENT OF COMPLETION CERTIFICATE ASSUMES IMPORTANCE FOR REMOV ING THE POSSIBILITY OF DEVIATION FROM THE SANCTIONED PLAN AND TO SEE TO IT THAT THE PROJECT HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SANCTIONED APPROVAL. IT IS SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF LAW THAT WHEN THE LANGUAGE OF A PROVIS ION IS CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS THEN THERE IS LITTLE SCOPE TO INTERPRET INT IN A DIFFERENT MANNER. 07. THE APPELLANT HAD PLACED RELIANCE ON INSTRUCTIO N NO. 4/2009 DARED 30.06.2009 AND HAS SUBMITTED THAT BY VIRTUE OF THE SAID INSTRUCTION, DEDUCTION OF 100% ON ITS PROFIT IS ALLOWABLE ON A Y EAR TO YEAR BASIS AS PROFIT HAS BEEN SHOWN ON PARTIAL COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT EVERY YEAR. BUT THE APPELLANT HAS OVERLOOKED CLAUSE (B) OF THE SAID INSTRUCTION WHICH HAS CLEARLY STATED THAT IF IT WAS FOUND THAT THE PROJEC T WAS NOT COMPLETED WITHIN THE SPECIFIED TIME LIMIT, THEN THE DEDUCTION GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE EARLIER YEARS SHOULD BE WITHDRAWN. AS CITED ABOVE, OUT OF THE 12 BLOCKS, ONLY 4 BLOCKS HAVE BEEN HELD TO BE COMPLETE D WITHIN THE SPECIFIED TIME PERIOD. HENCE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT SHOULD BE ALLOWED DEDUCTION ON PARTIAL COMPLETION METHOD WOULD NOT HO LD GLASS TO THE FACT THAT THE PROJECT AS ON 31.03,2013 WAS INCOMPLETE AN D IN KEEPING WITH THE INSTRUCTION, THE DEDUCTION ALREADY GRANTED WOUL D ANYWAY HAVE TO BE DISALLOWED. THE DEDUCTION WHICH WAS OTHERWISE ALLOW ABLE ON PARTIAL COMPLETION METHOD IS HELD TO BE NOT ALLOWED IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE CONDITION OF COMPLETING THE PROJECT WITHIN THE SPEC IFIED TIME LIMIT WAS NOT SATISFIED. 07.2 IT IS ALSO OBSERVED THAT FOR BLOCKS G, H, J, J , THE VALUATION OFFICER HAD MENTIONED THAT 20 FLATS EXCEEDED THE MAXIMUM BU ILTUP AREA OF 1500 SQ.FT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD OBSERVED THAT COND ITIONS PRESCRIBED AS PER CLAUSE (F) OF SEC 80IB(10) WAS ALSO NOT COMPLIE D WITH. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT IN PREVIOUS YEAR 2012-13 (A.Y 2013-14), IN BLOCK G, H AND F FOUR FLA TS WERE SOLD TO ITA NOS 956 AND OTHERS MANJEERA PROJECTS HYDERABAD. PAGE 7 OF 32 PERSONS TO WHOM 1 FLAT EACH HAD ALREADY BEEN SOLD E ARLIER IN VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF THE SEC 80IB(10). ACCORDING TO THE AP PELLANT, IT WAS ELIGIBLE UNDER SEC 80IB(10) INSPITE OF THESE IRREGULARITIES AND ACCORDING TO IT, EACH BLOCK WAS A HOUSING PROJECT AND WAS ELIGIBLE FOR DE DUCTION. OUT OF THE 241 COMPLETED FLATS UNDER PHASE-I-A; FOR THE BLOCKS EXCEEDING 1500 SQ.FT., IT SHOULD BE ALLOWED PRO-RATA DEDUCTION FOR FLATS HAVING BUILT-UP AREA OF 1500 SQ.FT. SIMILARLY, IT SUBMITTED THAT DI SALLOWANCE ON PROPORTIONATE BASIS SHOULD BE MADE ON THE PROFITS A CCRUED ON THE SALE OF FLATS SOLD TO INDIVIDUALS TO WHOM FLATS WERE ALREAD Y SOLD. RELIANCE WAS SPECIFICALLY PLACED ON THE DECISION OF MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VISWAS PROMOTERS PVT. LTD VS. ACIT (2013)29 TAXMAN. COM 19 IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION. IN THAT CASE, THE ASSESSES, A DE VELOPER HAD UNDERTAKEN SEVERAL HOUSING PROJECTS CONTAINING BLOCKS OF DIFFE RENT SIZES; SOME WERE OF LESS THAN 1500 SFT.AREA AND OTHERS MORE THAN THA T. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED PROPORTIONATE DEDUCTION ULS80IB(10) OR THOS E BLOCKS WHICH WERE OF LESS THAN 1500 SFT. AREA. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DENIED DEDUCTION U/S 80IB ON THE GROUND THAT THE DEDUCTION UNDER THE SAI D SECTION WAS FOR THE PROJECT AS A WHOLE AND ALL THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN THE PROJECT MUST SATISFY THE CONDITIONS THEREIN, VIZ; THE BUILT-UP AREA BE L ESS THAN 1500 SFT. THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASS ESSEE, BUT ON APPEAL. BY THE REVENUE, THE ITAT CONFIRMED THE ORDE R OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ON FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THE HIGH COURT, T HE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT EACH ONE OF THE BLOCKS OF THE FOUR PROJEC TS UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE HAD A SEPARATE SANCTION FROM THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY, THOUGH THE PROJECTS, VI:., AGRINI AND VAJRA WERE SLATED TO BE THE MASTER PLAN, EACH BLOCK IN THOSE PROJECTS HAD ITS OWN SPECIFICAT IONS AND HAD GONE}OR APPROVAL OF THE COMPETENT PLANNING AUTHORITY. TAKIN G THIS BACKGROUND INTO CONSIDERATION, IT HELD EACH BLOCK TO BE AN IND EPENDENT BUILDING AND A HOUSING PROJECT FOR PURPOSES OF CONSIDERING THE CLA IM OF DEDUCTION U/S 8OIB(10) OF THE ACT. IT ALSO OBSERVED THAT IN THOSE BLOCKS, THE BUILT UP OF SOME FLATS EXCEEDED 1500SFT. FOR THAT REASON ALONE, THE ENTIRE CLAIM COULD NOT BE REJECTED AND THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED FOR RELIEF ON A PROPORTIONATE BASIS OF FLATS THAT SATISFIED THE CON DITION OF THE NATURE STATED UNDER SECTION 80IB(1 O)(,~ OF THE AA: THIS, THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT THIS WAS SUBJECT TO THE BLOCKS SATISFYING THE CONDITIONS U/S 80/B(10) OF THE ACT. 07.3 IN APPELLANT'S CASE, THE FACTS OF THE CASE TOT ALLY DISSIMILAR. FOR ALL THE 12 BLOCKS IN THE HOUSING PROJECT, A SINGLE APPR OVAL AND A SINGLE SANCTION WAS TAKEN ON 4.2.2008. IT IS NOT THE APPEL LANT'S CASE THAT EACH BLOCK IN THE PROJECT HAD ITS OWN SPECIFICATION AND WAS GIVEN A SEPARATE APPROVAL. FOR A RATIO OF A DECISION TO BE APPLICABL E, THE FACTS HAVE TO BE IDENTICAL. THAT NOT BEING SO, THE DECISION IN THE C ASE OF MADRAS HIGH COURT (SUPRA) IS NOT APPLICABLE AND IT IS HELD THAT EACH BLOCK IS NOT A 'HOUSING PROJECT ' BUT INSTEAD BLOCK A TO L FORM A SINGLE HOUSING PROJECT. 08.0 THIS ISSUE. HAD ALSO COME IN APPEAL FOR A.Y 20 10-11 BEFORE THE CIT(A)-6, HYDERABAD AND THE CIT(A) VIDE ORDER DATED 15.09.2014 HELD THAT THE PROJECT COMPRISING OF 12 RESIDENTIAL BLOCK S WAS A SINGLE HOUSING PROJECT. AS BLOCK F. K, L. A, D, E HAD NOT BEEN COM PLETED BEFORE THE SPECIFIED DATE. THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S 8 0IB WAS UPHELD FOR THE REASON THAT ONLY PART OF THE PROJECT HAD GOT CO MPLETED AS ON 31.03.2013. MOREOVER, AS ALREADY STATED MORE THAN 1 FLAT HAS BEEN SOLD TO THE SAME INDIVIDUAL, HENCE EVEN FOR THAT DEDUCTI ON CANNOT BE ALLOWED. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID, IT IS HELD THAT THE ASSES SING OFFICER IS CORRECT IN DISALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. THER EFORE, THE ADDITION IS UPHELD. 09.0 IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FOR A,Y'. 2011-12 IS DIS MISSED. ITA NOS 956 AND OTHERS MANJEERA PROJECTS HYDERABAD. PAGE 8 OF 32 ACCORDINGLY, BY FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSISTE NCY, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED AND THE ORDER OF THE ASSE SSMENT IS CONFIRMED. 7.0 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE DECISION TAKEN TO DISM ISS THE APPEAL BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF CIT(A) IN THE C ASE OF THE SAME ASSESSEE FOR THE AY 2011-12, I WOULD LIKE TO ADJUDI CATE THE ISSUE ON MERITS AS DISCUSSED BELOW. 7.1 THE MAIN ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS CASE IS IMPORTA NCE OF COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSING PROJECT I.E. WHETHER THE AS SESSEE IS ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF INCOME DERIVED FROM P ARTIAL COMPLETION OF PROJECT I.E THOUGH TILE ENTIRE PROJECT IS NOT COMPL ETED, BUT CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL BLOCKS CONSISTING OF SUCH HOUSING PROJE CT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED, THEN, INCOME FROM SUCH COMPLETED RESIDEN TIAL BLOCKS IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OR NOT? 7.2 IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION, THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE WOULD DEPEND UPON A SPECIFIC FACT I.E. WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS OBTAINE D THE PLAN APPROVAL FROM THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY FOR THE ENTIRE PROJECT CONSISTING OF VARIOUS BLOCKS AS A WHOLE AT ONE GO OR PIECEMEAL MANNER IN RESPECT OF DIFFERENT BLOCKS OF THE HOUSING PROJECT AT DIFFERENT POINTS O F TIME. AS SUCH, COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSING PROJECT HAS T O BE RECKONED ON THE BASIS OF PLAN APPROVAL SANCTIONED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY. IF THE PLAN APPROVAL HAS BEEN GRANTED FOR THE ENTIRE HOUSING PR OJECT AS A WHOLE, THEN UNTIL UNLESS ALL THE BLOCKS CONSISTING OF THE PROJE CT ARE COMPLETED IN ALL RESPECTS WITHIN THE STIPULATED DUE DATE I.E., 5 YEA RS FROM THE END OF THE YEAR IN WHICH THE APPROVAL HAS BEEN GRANTED, IT CAN NOT BE CONSTRUED AS COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSING PROJECT. AS S UCH, EMPHASIS IS ON PROJECT COMPLETION AS A WHOLE BUT NOT COMPLETION OF BLOCKS CONSISTING OF THE PROJECT. IN THIS REGARD, THE RELEVANT PORTION O F THE ACT ARE REPRODUCED BELOW FOR READY REFERENCE; 'DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF PROFITS AND GAINS FROM CER TAIN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKINGS OTHER THAN INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT UNDERTAKINGS. (10) THE AMOUNT OF DEDUCTION IN THE CASE OF AN UNDE RTAKING DEVELOPING AND BUILDING HOUSING PROJECTS APPROVED BEFORE THE 3 1 ST DAY OF MARCH 2008 BY A LOCAL AUTHORITY SHALL HE HUNDRED PER CENT OF THE PROFITS DERIVED IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT 10 ANY ASSESSMENT YEA R FROM SUCH HOUSING PROJECT IF:- A) SUCH UNDERTAKING HAS COMMENCED OR COMMENCES DEVE LOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSING PROJECT ON OR AFTER THE 1 ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 1998 AND COMPLETES SUCH CONSTRUCTION,- (I) IN A CASE WHERE A HOUSING PROJECT HAS BEEN APPR OVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY BEFORE THE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL, 2004, ON OR BEFORE THE 31 ST DAY OF MARCH, 2008; (II) IN A CASE WHERE A HOUSING PROJECT HAS BEEN OR IS APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2004 BU T NOT LATER THAN THE 31 ST DAY OF MARCH, 2005, WITHIN FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE HOUSING PROJECTS APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY; (III) IN A CASE WHERE A HOUSING PROJECT HAS BEEN AP PROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY ON OR AFTER THE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL, 2005, WITHIN FIVE YEARS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE HOUSING PROJ ECT IS APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY. EXPLANATION -FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CLAUSE,- (I) IN A CASE WHERE THE APPROVAL IN RESPECT OF THE HOUSING PROJECT IS OBTAINED MORE THAN ONCE, SUCH HOUSING PROJECT SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE ITA NOS 956 AND OTHERS MANJEERA PROJECTS HYDERABAD. PAGE 9 OF 32 BEEN APPROVED ON THE DATE ON WHICH THE BUILDING PLA N OF SUCH HOUSING PROJECT IS FIRST APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY; (II) THE DATE OF COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSING PROJECT SHALL BE TAKEN TO BE THE DATE ON WHICH THE COMPLETION CERTIF ICATE IN RESPECT OF SUCH HOUSING' PROJECT'S ISSUED BY TILE LOCAL AUTHORITY; (B) THE PROJECT IS ON THE SIZE OF A PLOT OF LAND WH ICH HAS A MINIMUM AREA OF ONE ACRE: PROVIDED THAT NOTHING CONTAINED IN CLAUSE (A) OR CL AUSE (H) SHALL APPLY TO A HOUSING PROJECT CARRIED OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH A SC HEME FRAMED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OR A STATE GOVERNMENT FOR RECONS TRUCTION OR REDEVELOPMENT OF EXISTING BUILDINGS IN AREAS DECLAR ED TO BE SLUM AREAS UNDER ANY LAW FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE AND SUCH SCHEME IS NOTIFIED BY THE BOARD IN THIS BEHALF; (C) THE RESIDENTIAL UNIT HAS A MAXIMUM BUILT UP AR EA OF ONE THOUSAND SQUARE FEET WHERE SUCH RESIDENTIAL UNIT IS SITUATED WITHIN THE CITY OF DELHI OR MUMBAI OR WITHIN TWENTY-FIVE KILOMETRES FROM THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS OF THESE CITIES AND ONE THOUSAND AND FIVE HUNDRED SQ. FEET AT ANY OTHER PLACE. (D) THE BUILT-UP AREA OF THE SHOPS AND OTHER COMMER CIAL ESTABLISHMENTS INCLUDED IN THE HOUSING PROJECT DOES NOT EXCEED THR EE PERCENT OF THE AGGREGATE BUILT-UP AREA OF THE HOUSING PROJECT OR F IVE THOUSAND SQUARE FEET, WHICHEVER IS HIGHER: (E) NOT MORE THAN ONE RESIDENTIAL UNT: IN THE HOUSI NG PROJECT IS ALLOTTED TO ANY PERSON NOT BEING AN INDIVIDUAL; AND (F) IN A CASE WHERE A RESIDENTIAL UNIT IN THE HOUSI NG PROJECT IS ALLOTTED TO A PERSON BEING AN INDIVIDUAL, NO OTHER RESIDENTIAL UN IT IN SUCH HOUSING PROJECT IS ALLOTTED TO ANY OF THE FOLLOWING PERSONS , NAMELY:- (I) THE INDIVIDUAL OR THE SPOUSE OR THE MINOR CHILDREN OF SUCH INDIVIDUAL, (II) THE HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY IN WHICH SUCH INDIVIDUAL IS THE KARTA, (III) ANY PERSON REPRESENTING SUCH INDIVIDUAL, THE SPOUSE OR THE MINOR CHILDREN OF SUCH INDIVIDUAL OR THE HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY IN WHICH SUCH INDIVIDUAL IS THE KARTA. EXPLANATION FOR THE REMOVAL OF DOUBTS, IT IS HER EBY DECLARED THAT NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS SUB-SECTION SHALL APPLY T O ANY UNDERTAKING WHICH EXECUTES THE HOUSING PROJECT AS A WORKS CONTR ACT AWARDED BY ANY PERSON (INCLUDING THE CENTRAL OR STATE GOVERNMENT). (EMPHASIS SUPPLIED) AS SEEN FROM THE EXPLANATION (II) TO CLAUSE (A) OF SUB-SECTION (10) OF 80IB OF THE ACT, IT IS CLEARLY STATED THAT THE DATE OF C OMPLETION OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSING PROJECT SHALL BE THE DA TE ON WHICH COMPLETION CERTIFICATE HAS BEEN ISSUED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY. 7.3 IN THE INSTANT CASE, IT IS ALL ADMITTED FACT TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT COMPLETED CONSTRUCTION OF ALL THE 12 BLOCKS FORMING PART OF THE HOUSING PROJECT NAMELY, MANJEERA DIAMOND TOWER WITHIN THE D UE DATE PRESCRIBED. ITA NOS 956 AND OTHERS MANJEERA PROJECTS HYDERABAD. PAGE 10 OF 32 7.4 AS SEEN FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSE E HAS OBTAINED PLAN APPROVAL FROM GREATER HYDERABAD MUNCIPAL CORPORATIO N (GHMC) FOR THE HOUSING PROJECT MANJEERA DIAMOND TOWER ON 04.02.200 8. ACCORDINGLY, WITHIN 5 YEARS FROM THE END OF THE FY IN WHICH PLAN APPROVAL WAS GRANTED I.E. 31.03.2013, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE C OMPLETED THE ENTIRE PROJECT. HOWEVER, AS PER THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE F URNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM GHMC, THE ASSESSEE HAS COMPLETED THE CONSTRUCTION OF ONLY 4 BLOCKS CONSISTING OF THE HOUSING PROJECTS I. E, G, H, I &; J ON OR BEFORE THE STIPULATED DUE DATE LE. 31.03.2013. ON T HE OTHER HAND, THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT IT HAS OBTAINED THE OCC UPANCY CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF 10 BLOCKS VIZ.,G, H, I, J. F, K, L, A, D AND E BLOCKS. TO BE PRECISE, THE ASSESSEE OBTAINED PARTIAL OCCUPANCY CE RTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF BLOCKS G, H, I AND J VIDE GHMC CERTIFICATE NO. 1890 4/19/03/2012 DATED 29.03.2012. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED A COPY OF LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE CHIEF CITY PLANNER, GHMC FILED ON 30.0.3.2013, SEEKING ISSUE OF OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF OTHER SIX BLOCKS I.E, A, D, E,F, K &. L. HOWEVER, GHMC HAD ISSUED OCCUPANCY CERTIFIC ATE IN RESPECT OF F, K &. L BLOCKS ON 07.10.2014 AND IN RESPECT OF A, D AND E BLOCKS ON 02.09.20'14. IN THE SAID OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATES. IT IS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED APPLICATION FOR OCCUPANCY CE RTIFICATE ON 16.09.2014 AND 04.07.20.14 IN RESPECT OF F, K &L BL OCKS AND A. D & B BLOCKS, WHICH FALL AFTER THE STIPULATED DUE DATE OF 31.03 .20 13. 7.5 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED T HAT, IN RESPECT OF F, K & L AND A, D & E BLOCKS, THE L AND ASSESSEE D & E BLOCKS, THE LICENSED ARCHITECT HAS CERTIFIED THAT THE CONSTRUCT ION WAS COMPLETED ON 08.02.2013 AND 12.03.2013 RESPECTIVELY. FURTHER, TH E ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE APPLICATION MADE TO THE CHIEF CI TY PLANNER (TOWN PLANNING SECTION) GHMC FOR ISSUE OF OCCUPANCY CERTI FICATE IN RESPECT OF THESE 6 BLOCKS LE. F, K &L AND A. D, & E WAS WITHIN THE DUE DATE LE. 30.03.2013 (SUPRA). HOWEVER, THERE WAS A PROCEDURAL DELAY ON ACCOUNT OF GHMC IN GRANTING THE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE. AS S UCH, THE ASSESSEE IS TRYING TO RELY UPON THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE L ICENSED ARCHITECT IN SUPPORT OF COMPLETION OF PROJECT IN THIS REGARD, TH E ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN WHY THE DATE OF APPLICATION IS MENTIONED AS 16.09.2014 AND 14.07.2014 IN THE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY GHMC, AS STATED ABOVE. ON THE OTHER HAND, AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT; THE REQUIREMENT IS CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND THE DATE ON WHICH THE CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY WILL BE CONSTRUED.AS-THE DATE OF COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION . 7.6 BE THAT AS IT MAY, AT THIS JUNCTURE, IT IS IMPO RTANT TO NOTE THAT TWO BLOCKS CONSISTING OF THE PROJECT .I.E, B AND C HAVE NOT BEEN COMPLETED WITHIN THE DUE DATE I.E, 31.03.2013 AS PER-THE-ASSE SSEE'S OWN ADMISSION. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO C LAIM EXEMPTION U/S 80IB(1O) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF INCOME DERIVED FR OM SALE OF HOUSES FALLING UNDER THOSE BLOCKS IN AS MUCH AS THE BUILT UP AREA HAS EXCEEDED THE THRESHOLD LIMIT OF 1500 SQ. FT., BUT AT THE SAM E TIME, THOSE TWO BLOCKS ARE ALSO FORMING PART OF THE SAME HOUSING PROJECT I .E, MANJEERA DIAMOND TOWERS. AS SUCH, IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT TWO OF THE BLOCKS CONSISTING OF THE PROJECT I.E, B AND C HAVE NOT BEEN COMPLETED WITHIN THE STIPULATED DUE DATE I.E. 31.03.2013. ACCORDINGLY, EVEN AFTER C ONSIDERING FOR ARGUMENT'S SAKE THAT F, K, L, A, D AND E BLOCKS HAV E BEEN COMPLETED, SINCE BLOCK BAND C HAVE NOT BEEN COMPLETED WITHIN T HE THRESHOLD LIMIT OF 31.03.2013, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO CLAIM D EDUCTION IN RESPECT. OF INCOME FROM THE HOUSING PROJECT, EVEN CERTAIN BLOCK S HAVE 'BEEN COMPLETED WITHIN THE DUE DATE. 7.7 IN THIS REGARD, RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE FOLLO WING DECISIONS: ITA NOS 956 AND OTHERS MANJEERA PROJECTS HYDERABAD. PAGE 11 OF 32 I) SAINATH ESTATES PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT [2013/142 ITD 37 0 (HON'BLE ITAT HYDERABAD): IN THIS CASE, IT IS HELD BY HON'BLE ITA T THAT OBTAINING COMPLETION CERTIFICATE/ OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE FROM THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY BEFORE THE STIPULATED DUE DATE I.E, 4 YEA RS FROM THE YEAR IN WHICH PLAN APPROVAL HAS BEEN GRANTED IS A MANDATORY REQUIREMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S. 80IBOO) OF T HE ACT. TILE HELD PORTION OF THE ORDER IS REPRODUCED BELOW FOR READY REFERENCE: A READING OF THE PROVISION OF SEC 80-IB(10), AS AM ENDED BY THE FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 2004, WITH EFFECT FROM 1.4.2005 MAKES I T CLEAR THAT AN ASSESSEE WILT BE ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION UNDER THE SAID PROVISION IF HE FULFILS ALL THE CONDITIONS MENTIONED THEREIN. SUB-C LAUSE (II) OF CLAUSE (A) OF SECTION 80-LB(10) PROVIDES THAT IN A CASE WHERE HOU SING PROJECT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY ON OR AFTER 1-4-200 4 AND HAS BEEN COMPLETED WITHIN 4YEARS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCI AL YEAR IN WHICH THE HOUSING PROJECT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTH ORITY WOULD BE ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION. EXPLANATION (II) TO CLAUSE (A) OF SECTION 80-1B(10), HOWEVER, PUTS A RIDER THAT THE DATE OF COMPLETION O F CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSING PROJECT SHALL BE TAKEN TO BE THE DATE ON WH ICH THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF SUCH HOUSING PROJECT IS I SSUED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY. THEREFORE, IT IS APPARENT THAT DEDUCTION UNDER SECT ION 80IB(10) IN RESPECT OF A HOUSING PROJECT SHALL BE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSE SSEE, PROVIDED THE PROJECT IS APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY AFTER 1- 4-2004 AND HAS BEEN COMPLETED WITHIN A PERIOD OF 4 YEARS AND SUCH COMPL ETION HAS BEEN CERTIFIED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY. THE USE OF THE WO RD 'SHALL' IN EXPLANATION (II) MAKES THE FURNISHING OF COMPLETION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY MANDATORY TO PROVE THAT THE DEVELOPMENT A ND CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSING PROJECT IS COMPLETE IN ALL RESPECTS. THE REQUIREMENT OF COMPLETION CERTIFICATE ASSUMES I MPORTANCE FOR REMOVING THE POSSIBILITY OF DEVIATION FROM THE SANC TIONED PLAN AND TO SEE- THAT THE PROJECT HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SANCTIONED APPROVAL. IF THE FURNISHING OF THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE TO PROVE THE COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT IS NOT TO BE INSISTED UPON THEN THE PURPOSE FOR BRINGING SUCH A PROVISION TO THE STATUTE BECOMES REDUNDANT. IF THE FURNISHING OF COMPLETION CERTIFICATE FROM THE LOCAL AUTHORITY IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS NOT MANDATORY THEN IN EVERY CASE THE ASSESSEE WILL COME UP WITH ONE PLEA OR THE OTHER FOR NOT FURNISHING THE COMPLETION CERT IFICATE WHILE CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IB(10). IN THAT EVENT, T HE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF ENACTING SUCH A PROVISION WILL NOT BE FULFILLED. SIMILARLY THE MUNICIPAL ASSESSMENT OF THE INDIVIDUA L FLAT OWNERS OR SALE OF FLATS CANNOT BE SUBSTITUTE FOR THE COMPLETION CE RTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY. THESE FACTS DOES NOT CONCLUSIVELY PROVE THAT THE ENTIRE PROJECT WAS COMPLETE IN ALL RESPECTS. THESE DOCUMEN TS CERTAINLY CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATUTOR Y PROVISION [PARA 13] THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO DEDUCTI ON UNDER SECTION 80- IB(10) AS THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY CERTIFYING THE COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT HAD NOT BEEN SUBMITTE D BY IT. [PARA 14}' 2) CIT VS.GLOBAL REALITY (2015) 397 ITR 107 ( HONB LE MADHYA PRADESH HC. IN THIS CASE, THE HON'BLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT HELD THAT NOT ONLY ISSUE OF COMPLETION CERTIFICATE/OCCUPANCY CERTIFICA TE BY THE COMPETENT ITA NOS 956 AND OTHERS MANJEERA PROJECTS HYDERABAD. PAGE 12 OF 32 AUTHORITY CERTIFYING THE COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT WITHIN THE STIPULATED DUE DATE, BUT ALSO SUCH CERTIFICATE SHOULD HAVE BEEN IS SUED BEFORE THE STIPULATED DUE DATE. TO BE PRECISE, EVEN IF THE COM PETENT AUTHORITY IS CERTIFYING THAT THE PROJECT HAS BEEN COMPLETED WITH IN THE STIPULATED DUE DATE, BUT IF SUCH CERTIFICATE IS DATED SUBSEQUENT T O THE DUE DATE OF COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT, THEN ALSO (BE ASSESSEE I S NOT ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION T1/5. 80IB(1O) OF THE ACT. THE HELD PORTI ON OF THE ORDER IS REPRODUCED BELOW FOR READY REFERENCE: 'THE EXPLANATION BELOW CLAUSE (A) IN PARTICULAR (II ) POSTULATES THAT THE DATE OF COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSING PROJECT' S HALL BE TAKEN TO BE 'THE DATE ON WHICH COMPLETION CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF SUCH HOUSING PROJECT 'IS ISSUED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY. IF EXPLANATION (II) IS SUPERIMPOSED ON THE EXPRESSION 'COMPLETES SUCH CONSTRUCTION' IN CLAUSE (A) OF SECTION 80- 1B(10), IT WOULD MEAN THAT THE HOUSING PROJECTS COM MENCED ON OR AFTER 01-10-1998 MUST POSSESS COMPLETION CERTIFICATE ISSU ED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY ON OR BEFORE THE CUT OFF DALE, AS MAY BE APPLICABLE TO BECOME ELIGIBLE FOR TAX DEDUCTION. AS PER EXPLANATION (IT) , THEREFORE, THE SYNONYM OF 'COMPLETES SUCH CONSTRUCTION' WOULD BE THE DATE ON WHICH COMPLETION CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY. NO MO RE AND NO LESS. [PARA 20] ISSUANCE. OF COMPLETION CERTIFICATE, AFTER THE CUT OF DATE BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY BUT, MENTIONING THE DATE OF COMPLETION OF PROJECT BEFORE THE CUT OF DATE, DOES NOT FULFIL THE CONDITION SPECIFIED IN CLAUSE (A) OF SECTION 80-IB (10) READ WITH EXPLANATION (II) THEREUNDER. THE ARG UMENT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE EFFECT OF AMENDED CLAUSE (A) OF SUB-SECTIO N 10 OF SECTION BO-IB! WHICH HAS COME INTO FORCE WITH EFFECT FROM LST APRI L, 2005, HAS RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT OR THAT IT IS UNJUST IN ANY MA NLIER OR INCAPABLE OF COMPLIANCE AT ALL IS REJECTED. SIMILARLY, (HE REQUI REMENT OF SECURING COMPLETION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORIT Y BEFORE THE CUT 0F DATE IS NOT DIRECTORY, IN VIEW OF THE EXPRESS PROVISION IN SECTION 80-IB (A) AND THE EXPLANATION (IF) THEREUNDER. THE COMPLETION CER TIFICATE GRANTED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY MUST BEAR THE DATE OF HAVING BEEN I SSUED BEFORE THE CUT OFF DOTE. [PARA 26] THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF (HE TRIBUNAL IS SET ASIDE; AND IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE DECISION OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER TO DISALLOW DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IB(10)(A) IS UPHELD. [PA RA 28]' AS SEEN FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS SINE QUO NON TO OBTAI N THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE/OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE FROM THE COMPETEN T AUTHORITY ON OR BEFORE THE STIPULATED DUE DATE IN ORDER TO CLAIM DE DUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. IN THE INSTANT CASE, IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD OBTAIN THE PARTIAL COMPLETION CERTIFICATE-ONL Y IN RESPECT OF G, H, J & J ON OR BEFORE THE STIPULATED DUE DATE) BUT FAILED TO OBTAIN COMPLETION CERTIFICATE/OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF ALL OTHER BLOCKS OF THE PROJECT WITHIN THE STIPULATED DUE DATE, ACCORDINGLY , THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB (10) OF THE A CT AS THE BASIC REQUIREMENT OF COMPLETION OF THE ENTIRE PROJECT WIT HIN THE STIPULATE DUE DATE HAS NOT BEEN FULFILLED IN THIS CASE. 7.8 . EVEN AFTER CONSIDERING PARTIAL COMPLETION WOU LD ALSO ENTITLE THE ASSESSEE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) OF THE AC T, THEN ALSO THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF INCOME DERIVED FROM G H, I & J BLOCKS ONLY. IN THE IMPUGNED AY, IT IS N OTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED LOSS FROM G BLOCK OF RS, 1,08,06,974/ -, I BLOCK OF' RS. 63,16,467/-AND THERE IS NO INCOME FROM J BLOCK AT A LL. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE DISCLOSED INCOME FROM H BLOCK AMOUNTING TO RS, 48,87,329/-. AFTER ADJUSTING THE LOSS FROM G & J BLOCKS AGAINST THE INCOME FROM H ITA NOS 956 AND OTHERS MANJEERA PROJECTS HYDERABAD. PAGE 13 OF 32 BLOCK, THERE WON'T BE ANY INCOME, WHICH IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S, 80IB(L0) OF THE ACT. 7.9 IN VIEW OF THIS, EVEN AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASS ESSEE'S VIEW POINT THAT PARTIAL COMPLETION ALSO WOULD ENTITLE THE ASSESSEE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION ULS. 80IB(10) OF THE ACT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE A SSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM ANY DEDUCTION INASMUCH AS THERE IS NO INCOME DERIVED FROM THE PARTIALLY COMPLETED BLOCKS OF G, H, I AND J' DISCLO SED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE IMPUGNED AY. 7.10 ACCORDINGLY, ON ACCOUNT OF THE ALTERNATIVE LIN E 01' ADJUDICATION, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UL. 80ILL(10) OF THE ACT IS NOT ALLOWABLE. HENCE, THE G ROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. SUMMARY: 1) AS ALL THE 12 BLOCKS CONSISTING OF THE HOUSING P ROJECT HAVE NOT BEEN COMPLETED WITHIN THE STIPULATED DUE DATE I.E. 31.03 .2013, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE ACT SINCE THE PLAN APPROVAL WAS OBTAINED FOR THE ENTIRE PROJECT AS A WHOLE CONS ISTING OF 12 BLOCKS. 2) THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM OF COMPLETION OF F, K 4,RQ' L AND AT D & H WITHIN THE STIPULATED DUE, DATE ON THE BASIS OF INITIAL AP PLICATION MADE TO THE GHMC CANNOT BE ACCEPTED IN AS MUCH AS THERE IS SPEC IFIC STIPULATION IN THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT I.E. EXPLANATION (II) TO CLAUSE (A) OF SUB -SEC (10) OF 80IB OF THE ACT THAT THE DATE OF COMPLETION OF T HE HOUSING PROJECT SHALL BE TAKEN TO BE THE DATE ON WHICH THE COMPLETION CER TIFICATE IS ISSUED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY. 3) ALTERNATIVELY, CONSIDERING THE PARTIALLY COMPLET ED BLOCKS I.E. G, H, I AND J ARE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S 80IB (10) OF THE AC T, AS THERE IS NO NET INCOME FROM THESE BLOCKS, THE QUESTION OF ALLOWING ANY DEDUCTION DOES NOT ARISE. 5. MR. DEVDAS STRONGLY SUBMITTED DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THAT THE INSTANT SEC 80IB(10) DEDUCTION DISALLOWANC E ISSUE IS NO MORE RES INTEGRA SO FAR AS ALL THESE PROCESSING PROJECTS ARE CONSID ERED SINCE THIS TRIBUNALS COORDINATE BENCHS ORDER IN ITS OWN CASES FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11 TO 2012-13 INVOLVING ITA NOS 1704/HYD /2014, 1230/HYD/2015 AND 1082/H/2016 ALREADY ACCEPTED THES E VERY CLAIM VIDE FOLLOWING DETAILED DISCUSSIONS: 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLL OWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: '1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN FACT AND IN LAW IN DENYING EXEMPTION U/S.80(IB)(10) OF THE IT ACT AMOUNTING TO RS.16,99, 10,673/- AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE SPIRIT OF THE CIRCULAR NO.4/2009 DATED 30.6.2009 ISSUED BY CBDT PERMITTING ALLOWANCE OF ITA NOS 956 AND OTHERS MANJEERA PROJECTS HYDERABAD. PAGE 14 OF 32 DEDUCTION ON A YEAR TO YEAR BASIS ON THE PROFITS FR OM PARTIAL COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT. AS THE APPELLANT FOLLOWED PERCENTAGE O F COMPLETION METHOD ABOUT WHICH THERE IS NO DISPUTE, THE DEDUCTION SHOU LD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED SINCE THE APPELLANT HAD PRODUCED NECESSARY CERTIFIC ATE FOR COMPLETION. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THA T THE PROVISIONS U/S.801B(10) BEING INCENTIVE PROVISIONS, A LIBERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVISION WILL MAKE THE PROVISION OTIOSE INSTEAD OF ADVANCING THE PURPOSE OF LEGISLATION IN THE LIGHT OF THIS ACCEPTED PRINCIPLE ENUNCIATED THE APEX COURT. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF COMPLETED BLOCKS FOR WHICH THE CLAIM WAS MADE FOR WHICH NECES SARY CERTIFICATE WAS OBTAINED FROM THE MUNICIPALITY DULY SUPPORTED BY OT HER EVIDENCES. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE SPIRIT OF THE ABOVE CIRCULAR WHICH HAS THE EFFECT OF DILUTING THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 801B(10) TO REMOVE THE HARDSHIP CAUSED BY STRICT IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROVISIONS INSTEAD OF MAKING INCORRECT INTERPRETATION OF THE C IRCULAR. 5. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE LIMITED THE DED UCTION TO THE PORTIONS OF THE HOUSING PROJECT COMPLETED BY THE APPELLANT INST EAD OF MAKING A LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVISION AND DISALLOWING THE DEDUCTION. 6. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED DEDUCTI ON OF RS.L,71,170/- RECEIVED FROM DEPOSITS OF MARGIN MONEY IN THE BANKS '. 3. IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE, VIDE LETTER DATED 16.0 3.2015, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 'THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A)-VI, HYDERABAD IN GIVING A FINDING AT PARAGRAPH 4.15 OF THE ORDER THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT ENTITLE D TO 80-IB DEDUCTION FOR A, D & E BLOCKS, THE REVENUE FROM WHICH IS DISCLOSED I N A.Y 2012-13 IS A FINDING NOT NECESSARY FOR THE DISPOSAL OF APPEAL AN D THEREFORE MUST BE DELETED'. 4. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FI RM, ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION OF FLATS, FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME F OR THE A.Y 2010-11 ON 14.10.2010 ADMITTING 'NIL' INCOME AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION OF RS.16,99,10,673 U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER C ASS AND THE NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS ISSUED ON 26.08.2011 AND THE NOTICE U/S 142(1) WAS ISSUED ON 25.10.2012. IN RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE NOTICES, THE REPRESENTATIVE O F THE ASSESSEE APPEARED AND FURNISHED THE DETAILS CALLED FOR. AFTER VERIFICATIO N OF THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS UND ERTAKEN CONSTRUCTION OF A HOUSING PROJECT BY NAME 'MANJEERA DIAMOND TOWERS', NEAR GOPANNAPALLY VILLAGE, SERILINGAMPALLY MANDAL, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AND HA S CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT ON THE PROFITS ADMITTED DURING THE YEAR FROM THE PROJECT. HE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS UNDERTAKEN THE HOUSI NG PROJECT ON A PLOT AREA OF 11.05 ACRES AND THE PROJECT WAS APPROVED BY THE LOC AL AUTHORITY ON 4.2.2008 AND THAT THE HOUSING PROJECT APPROVED AS A SINGLE PROJE CT CONSISTING OF 11 BUILDINGS. HE OBSERVED THAT OUT OF THE 11 BUILDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE COMPLETED ITA NOS 956 AND OTHERS MANJEERA PROJECTS HYDERABAD. PAGE 15 OF 32 THE CONSTRUCTION OF 7 BUILDINGS AND THAT THE CONSTR UCTION OF THE BALANCE 4 BUILDINGS IS STILL IN SKELETON STAGE OR HAS NOT YET STARTED. EVEN, IN SUPPORT OF THE COMPLETION OF THE 7 BUILDINGS, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE PARTIAL OCC UPANCY CERTIFICATE DATED 29.03.2012 ISSUED BY GHMC FOR 4 BLOCKS, I.E. G, H, I & J ONLY AND NO CERTIFICATE WAS FURNISHED REGARDING THE REMAINING 3 BLOCKS. 5. IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE ALLOWABILITY OF ASSESSEE' S CLAIM DURING THE RELEVANT A.Y, AO MADE A REFERENCE TO THE DISTRICT VALUATION OFFICER OF THE DEPARTMENT TO INSPECT THE HOUSING PROJECT AND VERIFY ITS ELIGIBILITY FOR DEDU CTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. THE DVO, AFTER INSPECTION OF THE HOUSING PROJECT, VIDE VALUATION REPORT DATED 22.03.2013, SUBMITTED A DETAILED REPORT. AS PER THE SAID REPORT, THE MEASUREMENTS OF ONLY 241 FLATS CONSTRUCTED AT MANJEERA DIAMOND TOWE RS, PHASE-I, WERE GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THAT THE OC CUPANCY CERTIFICATE IS YET TO BE OBTAINED FOR F, K & L BLOCKS AND THE APPLICATION FO R ISSUANCE OF COMPLETION CERTIFICATE BEFORE THE GHMC IS YET TO BE FILED. AS REGARDS THE STATUS OF THE PROJECT IN MARCH, 2013, THE DVO REPORTED THAT; I) 4 BUILDINGS ARE COMPLETED IN RESPECT OF WHICH OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE WAS OBTAINED; II) 3 BUI LDINGS ARE STATED TO BE COMPLETED BUT NO EFFORTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO OBTAIN THE COMPLET ION CERTIFICATE FROM THE LOCAL AUTHORITY; AND III) THE BALANCE BUILDINGS ARE IN SK ELETON SHAPE OR ARE YET TO BE STARTED. FURTHER, IT WAS REPORTED THAT, AND OUT OF THE 241 FLATS COMPLETED, 20 FLATS ARE OF THE SIZE EXCEEDING 1500 SFT EACH. THEREFORE, THE AO ISSUED A SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. 6. IN REPLY THERETO, THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE C BDT INSTRUCTION NO.04/2009 DATED 30.06.2009 AND ALSO FILED A LIST OF CASE LAWS IN SU PPORT OF ITS CONTENTION THAT THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) IS ALLOWABLE ON YEAR TO YEAR BASIS ON PARTIAL COMPLETION OF THE HOUSING PROJECT. THE AO HOWEVER, HELD THAT THE ENTIRE PROJECT HAS BEEN APPROVED AS A SINGLE PROJECT AND THEREFORE, THE ASS ESSEE SHOULD HAVE COMPLETED THE WHOLE OF THE PROJECT ON OR BEFORE 31.03.2013 AND SI NCE THE PROJECT IS NOT FULLY COMPLETED AND THE BALANCE OF WORK IS NOWHERE NEAR C OMPLETION, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT.. HE ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE BUILT UP AREA OF SOME OF THE RESIDENTIAL FLATS IS MORE THAN 1500 SFT. HE, THUS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT AT ALL ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 8 0IB(10) OF THE ACT FOR THIS REASON AS WELL. FURTHER, HE ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS CLAIMED INTEREST RECEIVED ON MARGIN MONEY KEPT AS DEPOSITS IN THE BANKS ALSO AS A DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. HOLDING THAT THE INTEREST INCOME IS NOT DERIVE D FROM THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE, HE DENIED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCO RDINGLY, HE DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF RS.16,99,10,673 U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A), WHO CONFIRM ED THE ORDER OF THE AO AND THE ASSESSEE IS IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE US. 7. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, REITERATIN G THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE PR OJECT HAS BEEN APPROVED ON 4.2.2008 AND THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT WITHIN FIVE YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08 , I.E. BEFORE 31.03.2013, THE ENTIRE PROJECT COULD NOT BE COMPLETED BY SUCH DATE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS COMPLETED THE BLOCKS G, H, I & J BEFORE 29.03.2 012 AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE DATED 29.03.2012 AND THE BLOC KS F, K & L WERE ALSO COMPLETED AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE ARCHITECT CERTIFIC ATE ENCLOSED ALONG WITH THE ITA NOS 956 AND OTHERS MANJEERA PROJECTS HYDERABAD. PAGE 16 OF 32 APPLICATION FOR ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE F ROM GHMC AS WELL AS THE FIRE & EMERGENCY SERVICES DEPARTMENT ON 30.03.2013. HE SUB MITTED THAT WHEN EACH OF THE BLOCK CONTAINS MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL FLATS, EACH BLO CK HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS A HOUSING PROJECT AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS COMPLETE D SEVEN BLOCKS OUT OF THE WHOLE PROJECT, THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIMING DEDU CTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT ON THE PROFITS OF THESE BLOCKS ON PERCENTAGE COMPLETION ME THOD. HE PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE CBDT INSTRUCTION NO.04/2009 DATED 30.06.2009 WH EREIN THE BOARD HAS CLARIFIED THAT (A) THE DEDUCTION CAN BE CLAIMED ON A YEAR TO YEAR BASIS, WHERE THE ASSESSEE IS SHOWING PROFIT FROM PARTIAL COMPLETION OF THE PROJE CT IN EVERY YEAR; (B) IN CASE IT IS LATE AND FOUND THAT THE CONDITION OF COMPLETING THE PROJECT WITHIN THE SPECIFIED TIME LIMIT OF 4 YEARS AS STATED IN SECTIO N 80IB(10) HAS NOT BEEN SATISFIED, THE DEDUCTION GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE EARLIE R A.YS SHOULD BE WITHDRAWN. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS COMPLETED THE CONSTRUCTION OF 4 BUILDINGS CONTAININ G VARIOUS RESIDENTIAL UNITS, EACH BLOCK ALSO CAN BE CONSIDERED AS A SEPARATE HOUSING PROJECT AND THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT ON THE PROFITS FROM BUILDINGS ITA NOS 1704 1082 AND 1230 MANJEERA PROJE CTS HYDERABAD. WHICH ARE COMPLETED. FOR THIS PROPOSITION, HE PLACE D RELIANCE UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: I) ITO VS. SAKET CORPORATION (20 15) 62 TAXMANN.COM 38 (GUJ.) II) M/S. VISWAS PROMOTERS PVT LTD VS. ASSTT. CIT REPORTED IN 373 ITR 317 ( MAD.) III) SIDDHIVINAYAK KOHINOOR VENTUR E VS. ADDL. CIT (2014) 159 TTJ 0390 (PUNE ) IV) CIT VS. VANDANA PROPERTIES (2 013) 353 ITR 36 (BOM.) V) CIT VS. VOORA PROPERTY DEVELO PERS P LTD (2015) 373 ITR 317 (MAD) VI) PUSHKAR CONSTRUCTION CO. VS. ITO (2015) 43 ITR (TRIB.) 293 (ITAT AHD. ) 8. ON THE ISSUE OF THE COMPLETION OF BLOCKS F, K & L, HE HAS DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO THE ASSESSEE'S APPLICATION TO THE DIRE CTOR GENERAL OF FIRE & EMERGENCY SERVICES AND TO THE GHMC SUBMITTED ON 30. 03.2013 ALONG WITH THE ARCHITECT CERTIFICATE STATING THAT THE F, K & L BLOCKS UNDER THE HOUSING PROJECT 'MANJEERA DIAMOND PROJECT' HAVE BEEN INSPEC TED AND HAVE BEEN COMPLETED IN ALL ASPECTS AS PER THE DESIGN AND APPR OVED PLANS OF THE GHMC. HE HAS DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 455 OF HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT OF 1955 TO ARGUE THAT IF THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER FAILED TO REFUSE PERMISSION WITHIN 21 DAYS AFTER RECEIPT OF THE NOTICE OF THE COMPLETION, THEN IT SHALL BE DEEMED T O HAVE BEEN GRANTED. HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO REFUSAL BY THE COMMISSI ONER WITHIN THE STIPULATED PERIOD OF 21 DAYS OF THE ASSESSEE'S APPL ICATION DATED 30.03.2013 AND THEREFORE, THE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE SHOULD BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN ITA NOS 956 AND OTHERS MANJEERA PROJECTS HYDERABAD. PAGE 17 OF 32 GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE. NOTWITHSTANDING THE ABOVE ARGUMENTS, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ON 28.05.20 13, THE CHIEF CITY PLANNER WAS AGAIN APPROACHED BY THE ASSESSEE, SEEKI NG THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE AND IN REPLY THERETO THE CHIE F CITY PLANNER, VIDE LETTER DATED 13.06.2013, HAD POINTED OUT ONLY THE FOLLOWIN G DEFECTS: I) CIVIL WORKS IN THE CELLAR AND SUB-CELLAR FLATS A RE NOT COMPLETED II) NOT CONSTRUCTED THE COMPOUND WALL IN THE NORTH- WEST CORNER OF THE BLOCK III) NOT CONSTRUCTED THE RAIN WATER HARVESTING STRU CTURES. 9. HE SUBMITTED THAT THESE DEFECTS ARE NOT SUBSTANT IAL FOR CONSIDERING WHETHER OR NOT THE BLOCKS ARE COMPLETED IN ALL RESP ECTS AND THAT THESE MINOR DEFECTS ALSO HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH BY THE ASSESSE E SUBSEQUENTLY AND ULTIMATELY THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE WAS ISSUED ON 16.12.2014. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO HIM, THE ASSESSEE HAS COMPLETED THE BL OCKS F, K & L IN ALL RESPECTS BEFORE THE DUE DATE I.E. 31.03.2013 AND TH EREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT ON T HE INCOME FROM THESE BUILDINGS TOO. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, HE PL ACED RELIANCE UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: A) CIT VS. HINDUSTAN SAMUH AWAS LTD (2015) 377 ITR 150 (BOM.) B) M/S. SRIRAM CONSTRUCTIONS, H YDERABAD VS. DCIT, HYDERABAD IN ITA NO.13 00/2001 & OTHERS DATED 29.4.2016. C) CIT VS. M/S. ITTINA PROPERTIES (P) LTD IN ITA NO.556 OF 2013 & OTHERS DATED 15.7.2014 OF THE HON'BLE KA RNATAKA HIGH COURT. 10. AS REGARDS THE OBJECTION OF THE REVENUE THAT SO ME OF THE FLATS EXCEEDED THE AREA OF 1500 SFT, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE PROPORT IONATE DEDUCTION IS TO BE DISALLOWED AND NOT THE ENTIRE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION. T HUS, ACCORDING TO HIM, THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT FOR ALL THE BLOCKS COMPLETED BY IT. 11. AS REGARDS THE INTEREST INCOME WHICH HAS BEEN C LAIMED AS A DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THESE DEPOSITS WERE KEPT AS MARGIN MONEY WITH THE B ANKS FOR COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT AND THEREFORE, THEY ARE INEXTRICABLY LI NKED TO THE PROJECT AND INTEREST THEREFROM IS ALSO LINKED TO THE PROJECT AN D THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT ON S UCH INTEREST INCOME AS WELL. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, HE PLACED RELI ANCE UPON THE DECISIONS OF THE HON'BLE TELANGANA & A.P. HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF INDO AQUATICS (2014) 369 ITR 589 (T&AP), AND IN THE CASE OF CIT V S. GODAVARI DRUGS LTD (2015) 371 ITR 379 (T&A.P). ITA NOS 956 AND OTHERS MANJEERA PROJECTS HYDERABAD. PAGE 18 OF 32 12. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUPPORTED TH E ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT THE HOUSING PR OJECT HAS BEEN APPROVED AS A SINGLE PROJECT AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE ENTIRE PROJECT ON OR BEFORE 31.03.2013 AND HAS TO O BTAIN THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE BY THE SAID DATE FOR ALL THE BUILDINGS AS IS REQUIRED UNDER THE RELEVANT PROVISION. HE SUBMITTED THAT SECTION 80IB (10) BEING AN INCENTIVE PROVISION, HAS TO BE INTERPRETED AS PER THE WORDING S OF THE SECTION. HE, THUS PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS FOR TH E ABOVE PROPOSITION: A) IPCA LABORATORIES VS. DY.CIT (2004) 266 ITR 0521 (S.C) B) INDIAN RAYON CORPN. LTD VS. CI T (1998) 231 ITR 0026. C) PETRON ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION (P) LTD & ANR. VS. CBDT & OTHERS (1989( 175 ITR 13. TO THE EFFECT THAT OBTAINING OF COMPLETION CERT IFICATE IS MANDATORY AND WITHOUT THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTIO N U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED DR PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE FOLLOWING DECIS IONS: A) CIT BHOPAL VS. GLOBAL REALITY, REPORTED IN (2015 ) 379 ITR 107 (M.P) B) SAINATH ESTATES (P) LTD VS. DY.CIT (2013) 26 ITR (T) 55 (HYD.TRIB.) C) CIT LUCKNOW VS. ARIF INDUSTRIES LTD (2017) 80 TA XMANN.COM 374 D) DY.CIT CO-CIRCLE (VI)(1) VS. MARCO MARWELL PROJE CTS LTD (2013) 29 TAXMANN.COM 249 (CHENNAI TRIB.). 14. ON THE ISSUE OF INTEREST INCOME FROM MARGIN MON EY NOT BEING ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT, THE LEARNED DR P LACED RELIANCE UPON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF LIBERTY INDIA VS. CIT (2009) 317 ITR 218 (S.C). 15. HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE'S PROJECT HAS BEEN APPROVED ON 4.2.200 8 AND THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT ON OR BEFO RE 31.03.2013. THE PROJECT CONTAINS ELEVEN BLOCKS IN AN AREA OF 11.05 ACRES AN D THE ASSESSEE HAS COMPLETED 4 BLOCKS IN TOTALITY AND HAS ALSO OBTAINED PARTIAL CO MPLETION CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF THESE BLOCKS. IN RESPECT OF 3 BLOCKS, IT IS THE CLA IM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THEY WERE ALSO COMPLETED IN ALL RESPECTS AND THE APPLICATION FOR I SSUANCE OF COMPLETION CERTIFICATE ALONG WITH NECESSARY ENCLOSURES SUCH AS ARCHITECT'S CERTIFICATE ETC., WAS FILED ON 30.03.2013. 16. FROM THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE BE FORE US, THE QUESTION BEFORE US IS WHETHER THE ENTIRE PROJECT IS TO BE COMPLETED BEFOR E 31.03.2013 OR EACH BLOCK CAN BE CONSIDERED AS AN INDEPENDENT HOUSING PROJECT AND DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) CAN BE ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF SUCH COMPLETED BLOCKS?. THE A SSESSEE HAS RECEIVED THE APPROVAL FOR ALL THE BLOCKS AS ONE HOUSING PROJECT AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE MUNICIPAL PROCEEDINGS NO.G/1272/BP/581/ 2007 DATED 4.2.2008 ( AT PAGE 2 OF THE PAPER BOOK ITA NOS 956 AND OTHERS MANJEERA PROJECTS HYDERABAD. PAGE 19 OF 32 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE) BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN AB LE TO COMPLETE ONLY SEVEN BUILDINGS OUT OF THE WHOLE PROJECT. THE CBDT INSTRU CTION NO.04/09 DATED 30.06.2009 HAD CLARIFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE CAN CLAI M THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) ON A YEAR TO YEAR BASIS WHEN IT IS FOLLOWING PERCENTAG E COMPLETION METHOD AND SUCH A DEDUCTION SO GRANTED IN EACH OF THE YEARS CAN BE WI THDRAWN IF THE CONDITION OF THE COMPLETING THE PROJECT WITHIN THE STIPULATED PERIOD IS NOT FULFILLED. 17. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) ON PERCENTAGE COMPLETION METHOD. THE PROJECT WAS SUPPO SED TO BE COMPLETED BY 30.03.2013. THOUGH THE CLAIM IN THE A.Y 2007-08 IS MADE FOR THE FIRST TIME, THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED ONLY AFTER IS SUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) ON 26.08.2011 AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON 3 0.03.2013, BY WHICH DATE, THE INFORMATION REGARDING THE STAGE OF THE PROJECT WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE AO. THEREFORE, THE AO DID NOT ALLOW THE DEDUCTIONS. THE REFORE, THE ACTION OF THE AO CANNOT BE SAID TO BE AGAINST THE INSTRUCTION NO. 04/09 (CITED SUPRA). THE QUESTION THAT ARISES NOW IS WHETHER THE DEDUCTION I S TO BE DENIED IN TOTO, SINCE THE PROJECT IS NOT COMPLETED IN TOTO?. BOTH THE PARTIES BEFORE US HAVE RELIED UPON VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS ON THE ISSUE IN SUPPORT OF THEIR CONTENTIONS. THEREFORE, THEIR APPLICABILITY TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE BEFORE US IS TO BE EXAMINED. 18. IN THE CASE OF IPCA LABORATORIES (SUPRA), THE H ON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA WAS DEALING WITH THE ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC AND HAS HELD THAT 'EVEN THOUGH A LIBERAL INTERPRETATION HAS TO BE GIVEN TO AN INCENTIVE PROVISION, THE INTERPRETATION HAS TO BE AS PER THE WORDINGS OF THE SECTION AND THE BENEFITS WHICH ARE NOT AVAILABLE UNDER THE SECTION CANNOT BE CONFE RRED BY IGNORING OR MISINTERPRETING CLEAR WORDS IN THE SECTION. 19. IN THE CASE OF INDIAN RAYON CORPORATION LTD (SU PRA), THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE PRINCIPLE OF BENEFICIAL INTERPR ETATION HAS NO APPLICATION WHERE THE WORDS OF STATUTE ARE PLAIN, PRECISE AND UNAMBIG UOUS. 20. IN THE CASE OF PETRON ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD & ANR (CITED SUPRA), THE HON'BLE APEX COURT HELD THAT THOUGH IT IS TRUE THAT AN EXEMPTION PROVISION SHOULD BE CONSTRUED LIBERALLY, SUCH A CONSTRUCTION SHOULD NOT BE MADE DOING VIOLENCE TO THE PLAIN MEANING OF SUCH EXEMPTION PRO VISION AND LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION WILL BE MADE WHENEVER IT IS POSSIBLE TO BE MADE WIT HOUT IMPAIRING THE LEGISLATURE REQUIREMENT AND THE SPIRIT OF THE PROVISION. 21. FROM THE ABOVE JUDGMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE LEA RNED DR, IT EMERGES THAT A BENEFICIAL PROVISION SHOULD BE LIBERALLY CONSTRUED, BUT WITHOUT DOING VIOLENCE TO THE PLAIN MEANING OF THE PROVISION AND KEEPING IN MIND THE LEGISLATURE REQUIREMENT AND THE SPIRIT OF THE PROVISION. THESE DECISIONS ARE ON THE PRINCIPLE OF INTERPRETATION OF THE STATUTE AND NOT DIRECTLY ON THE PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. 22. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IB(10) AS APPLICABL E TO THE RELEVANT A.Y READS AS UNDER: '[80IB(10) THE AMOUNT OF DEDUCTION IN THE CASE OF A N UNDERTAKING DEVELOPING AND BUILDING HOUSING PROJECTS APPROVED B EFORE THE 31ST DAY OF ITA NOS 956 AND OTHERS MANJEERA PROJECTS HYDERABAD. PAGE 20 OF 32 MARCH, [2008] BY A LOCAL AUTHORITY SHALL BE HUNDRED PER CENT OF THE PROFITS DERIVED IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO ANY ASSESS MENT YEAR FROM SUCH HOUSING PROJECT IF,-- (A) SUCH UNDERTAKING HAS COMMENCED OR COMMENCES DEV ELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSING PROJECT ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 1998 AND COMPLETES SUCH CONSTRUCTION,-- (I) IN A CASE WHERE A HOUSING PROJECT HAS BEEN APPR OVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY BEFORE THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2004, ON OR BEFORE THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH, 2008; (II) IN A CASE WHERE A HOUSING PROJECT HAS BEEN, OR , IS APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2004 [B UT NOT LATER THAN THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH, 2005], WITHIN FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE HOUSING PROJECT IS APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY; (III) IN A CASE WHERE A HOUSING PROJECT HAS BEEN AP PROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2005, W ITHIN FIVE YEARS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE HOUSING PROJ ECT IS APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY.] EXPLANATION.--FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CLAUSE,-- (I) IN A CASE WHERE THE APPROVAL IN RESPECT OF THE HOUSING PROJECT IS OBTAINED MORE THAN ONCE, SUCH HOUSING PROJECT SHALL BE DEEME D TO HAVE BEEN APPROVED ON THE DATE ON WHICH THE BUILDING PLAN OF SUCH HOUSING PROJECT IS FIRST APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY; (II) THE DATE OF COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSING PROJECT SHALL BE TAKEN TO BE THE DATE ON WHICH THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE IN RES PECT OF SUCH HOUSING PROJECT IS ISSUED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY; (B) THE PROJECT IS ON THE SIZE OF A PLOT OF LAND WH ICH HAS A MINIMUM AREA OF ONE ACRE: PROVIDED THAT NOTHING CONTAINED IN CLAUSE (A) OR CL AUSE (B) SHALL APPLY TO A HOUSING PROJECT CARRIED OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH A SCHEME FRA MED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OR A STATE GOVERNMENT FOR RECONSTRUCTION OR REDEVEL OPMENT OF EXISTING BUILDINGS IN AREAS DECLARED TO BE SLUM AREAS UNDER ANY LAW FOR T HE TIME BEING IN FORCE AND SUCH SCHEME IS NOTIFIED BY THE BOARD IN THIS BEHALF; (C) THE RESIDENTIAL UNIT HAS A MAXIMUM BUILT-UP ARE A OF ONE THOUSAND SQUARE FEET WHERE SUCH RESIDENTIAL UNIT IS SITUATED WITHIN THE CITY OF DELHI OR MUMBAI OR WITHIN TWENTY-FIVE KILOMETERS FROM THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS OF THESE CITIES AND ONE THOUSAND AND FIVE HUNDRED SQUARE FEET AT ANY OTHER PLACE; (D) THE BUILT-UP AREA85 OF THE SHOPS AND OTHER COMM ERCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS INCLUDED IN THE HOUSING PROJECT DOES NOT EXCEED [THREE] PER CENT OF THE AGGREGATE BUILT-UP AREA OF THE HOUSING PROJECT OR [FIVE THOUSAND SQUAR E FEET, WHICHEVER IS HIGHER] (E) NOT MORE THAN ONE RESIDENTIAL UNIT IN THE HOUSI NG PROJECT IS ALLOTTED TO ANY PERSON NOT BEING AN INDIVIDUAL; AND ITA NOS 956 AND OTHERS MANJEERA PROJECTS HYDERABAD. PAGE 21 OF 32 (F) IN A CASE WHERE A RESIDENTIAL UNIT IN THE HOUSI NG PROJECT IS ALLOTTED TO A PERSON BEING AN INDIVIDUAL, NO OTHER RESIDENTIAL UNIT IN S UCH HOUSING PROJECT IS ALLOTTED TO ANY OF THE FOLLOWING PERSONS, NAMELY:-- (I) THE INDIVIDUAL OR THE SPOUSE OR THE MINOR CHILD REN OF SUCH INDIVIDUAL, (III) THE HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY IN WHICH SUCH INDI VIDUAL IS THE KARTA, (IV) ANY PERSON REPRESENTING SUCH INDIVIDUAL, THE S POUSE OR THE MINOR CHILDREN OF SUCH INDIVIDUAL OR THE HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY IN WH ICH SUCH INDIVIDUAL IS THE KARTA.] EXPLANATION.--FOR THE REMOVAL OF DOUBTS, IT IS HEREBY DECLARED THAT NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS SUB-SECTION SHALL APPLY TO ANY UN DERTAKING WHICH EXECUTES THE HOUSING PROJECT AS A WORKS CONTRACT AWARDED BY ANY PERSON (INCLUDING THE CENTRAL OR STATE GOVERNMENT).' 23. FROM A LITERAL READING OF THE ABOVE PROVISION, THE RELEVANT CONDITIONS TO BE FULFILLED IN THE CASE BEFORE US ARE THAT THE PROJEC T (I) SHALL HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY; (II) SHOULD BE ON A MINIMUM AR EA OF ONE ACRE; (III) EACH RESIDENTIAL UNIT SHOULD NOT EXCEED THE SPECIFIED AR EA; (IV) SHOULD HAVE BEEN COMPLETED WITHIN THE STIPULATED PERIOD; AND (V) THE PROJECT SHALL BE TAKEN TO BE COMPLETED ON THE DATE ON WHICH THE COMPLETION CERTI FICATE IS ISSUED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY. 24. AS FAR AS THE 4 BLOCKS ARE CONCERNED, ALL THE A BOVE, EXCEPT CONDITION NO.(IV) ARE FULFILLED AND AS FAR AS 3 BLOCKS ARE CONCERNED, BOT H THE CONDITIONS (IV) AND (V) ARE NOT FULFILLED. IN RESPECT OF SOME OF THE FLATS, THE RE IS A VIOLATION OF CONDITION NO.(III) AS WELL. THEREFORE, IT IS TO BE EXAMINED, IF THE DE DUCTION IS NOT TO BE ALLOWED IN TOTO EVEN IF ONE OF THE ABOVE CONDITION IS NOT FULFILLED . 25. THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CI T VS. VANDANA PROPERTIES REPORTED IN (2013) 355 ITR 36 (BOM.) HAS CONSIDERED SIMILAR SITUATION WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE THEREIN HAD OBTAINED APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT FOUR BUILDINGS ON A PLOT OF LAND ADMEASURING 2.36 ACRES AND INTIMATION OF THE APPROVAL IN RESPECT OF THOSE BUILDINGS WAS GRANTED DURING THE YEARS 1993-9 6 AND FOLLOWING THE PERCENTAGE COMPLETION METHOD, THE ASSESSEE THEREIN HAD OFFERED TO TAX, THE INCOME EARNED FROM CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS A, B, C & D FROM TIME TO TIME AND DEDUCTION U/80IB(10) OF THE ACT WAS ALSO CLAIMED AND ALLOWED. SUBSEQUENT LY, THE STATE GOVT. IN THE YEAR 2001, PERMITTED CONVERSION OF THE STATUS OF THE LAN D AND THE ASSESSEE BECAME ENTITLED TO CONSTRUCT ADDITIONAL BUILDING 'E' ON TH E PLOT OF LAND AND ACCORDINGLY THE BUILDING PLAN WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH W AS APPROVED BY THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, SUBJECT TO VARIOUS CONDITIONS SET OUT THEREIN. THEREAFTER, THE COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF 'E' BU ILDING WAS ISSUED ON MARCH 10,2003 AND IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.YS 20 04-05 AND 2005-06, THE ASSESSEE ESTIMATED THE PROFIT FROM E BUILDING AND CLAIMED DE DUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. THE AO DISALLOWED THE CLAIM ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPROVAL FOR 'E' BUILDING WAS GRANTED ON 11TH OF OCTOBER, 2002, AS AN EXTENSION O F THE APPROVAL GRANTED FOR THE BUILDINGS IN A TO D AND THEREFORE, THE E BLOCK, BEI NG CONTINUATION OF A, B, C & D BUILDINGS, THE PROJECT MUST BE HELD TO HAVE COMMENC ED PRIOR TO OCTOBER 1, 1998, AND HENCE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10 ) OF THE ACT. THE AO ALSO HELD ITA NOS 956 AND OTHERS MANJEERA PROJECTS HYDERABAD. PAGE 22 OF 32 THAT THE BUILDINGS WERE CONSTRUCTED IN A PLOT OF LA ND ADMEASURING 2.36 ACRES OF THE LAND AND IF IT WAS PROPORTIONATELY DIVIDED BETWEEN ALL THE BUILDINGS, THEN THE LAND PERTAINING TO E BUILDING WOULD BE LESS THAN ONE ACR E AND HENCE, DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) COULD NOT BE ALLOWED. THE HON'BLE BOMBAY H IGH COURT HELD THAT THE BUILDING E WAS APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY ON O CTOBER 11, 2002 BY A SEPARATE APPROVAL AND THEREFORE, IT CONSTITUTED AN INDEPENDE NT HOUSING PROJECT AND THAT SECTION 80IB(10) WHILE SPECIFYING THE SIZE OF THE PLOT OF LAND, DOES NOT SPECIFY THE SIZE OR THE NUMBER OF HOUSING PROJECTS THAT ARE REQUIRED TO BE UNDERTAKEN ON A PLOT HAVING A MINIMUM AREA OF ONE ACRE. THUS, THE H ON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT IF THE ASSESSEE HAS CONSTRUCTED A BUILDING ON MINIMUM OF ONE ACRE, AS PER THE SANCTIONED PLAN AND OBTAINED THE COMPLETION CERTIFI CATE, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10). 26. THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CI T VS. VOORA PROPERTY DEVELOPERS (P) LTD REPORTED IN (2015) 373 ITR 317 ( MAD) WAS CONSIDERING THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE, WHO RECEIVED APPROVAL OF THE LOCAL AUTHORITY IN RESPECT OF A COMPOSITE HOUSING SCHEME AND HAD OBTAINED SEPARATE PLAN PERMITS FOR SIX BLOCKS ON ONE ACRE AND 6.5 CENTS OF LAND. THE AO THEREIN HAD DENIED THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEVELO PED SIX SEPARATE PROJECTS IN ONE SINGLE PIECE OF LAND MEASURING 1.065 ACRES AND THER EFORE, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FULFIL THE ESSENTIAL CONDITIONS OF THE MINIMUM AREA OF ONE ACRE FOR A SINGLE PROJECT AS LAID DOWN U/S 80IB(10). THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT IF THE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED U/S 80IB ARE SATISFIED, THEN THE DEDUCTION IS ALLOWABLE ON THE ENTIRE PROJECT AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE CONSTRUCTED SIX BLOCKS IN A LAND MEASU RING 1 ACRE AND 6.5 CENTS, THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION. 27. THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CA SE OF M/S. SRIRAM CONSTRUCTIONS VS. DY.CIT IN ITA NO.1300/HYD/2011 VIDE ORDERS DATE D29.04.2016 HAS ALSO CONSIDERED SIMILAR SITUATION AND HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WILL NOT AUTOMATICALLY LOOSE THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) FOR THE ENTIRE PRO JECT BUT IS ELIGIBLE FOR PRO-RATA DEDUCTION AS ALLOWED BY THE CIT (A) IN THE SAID CAS E. 28. THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDA BAD IN THE CASE OF PUSHKAR CONSTRUCTION CO VS. ITO REPORTED IN (2015) 43 ITR ( TRIB.) 293 (ITAT AHM.) HAS FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH CO URT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VANDANA PROPERTIES (SUPRA) AND ALSO THE HON'BLE MAD RAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VOORA PROPERTY DEVELOPERS (P) LTD (SUPRA ) TO HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT, IF T HE ASSESSEE FULFILLS THE CONDITION OF CONSTRUCTING A HOUSING PROJECT ON A PLOT HAVING THE AREA OF MORE THAN ONE ACRE. IT WAS HELD THAT ON A PLOT OF LAND HAVING MINIMUM AREA OF ONE ACRE, THERE COULD BE ANY NUMBER OF HOUSING PROJECTS AND SINCE THE HOUSIN G PROJECTS WERE APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY AND FULFILLED THE CONDITIONS SE T OUT U/S 80IB(10), DEDUCTION COULD NOT BE DENIED TO ALL THE HOUSING PROJECTS. IT WAS A LSO HELD THAT SECTION 80IB(10) SPECIFIED THE SIZE OF THE PLOT OF LAND BUT NOT THE SIZE OR THE NUMBER OF HOUSING PROJECTS THAT WERE REQUIRED TO BE UNDERTAKE N ON A PLOT HAVING MINIMUM AREA OF ONE ACRE. 29. IN THE CASE OF M/S. VISWAS PROMOTERS PVT. LTD ( CITED SUPRA), THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT HAS OBSERVED THAT THERE IS NO DEFINITION OF THE EXPRESSION 'HOUSING ITA NOS 956 AND OTHERS MANJEERA PROJECTS HYDERABAD. PAGE 23 OF 32 PROJECT' U/S 80IB OF THE ACT AND THAT SAID EXPRESSI ON IS DEFINED UNDER EXPLANATION TO SECTION 80HHBA OF THE ACT. THE HON'BLE HIGH COUR T, AFTER CONSIDERING THE SAID DEFINITION, HAS HELD AS UNDER: '13. SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT IS A SPECIFIC PROVISIO N WHICH DEALS WITH DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF PROFITS AND GAINS FROM INDU STRIAL UNDERTAKINGS OR ENTERPRISES ENGAGED IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF INFRASTRU CTURAL FACILITIES SUCH AS ROADS, BRIDGES AND OTHER STRUCTURE AS REGARDS THE G RANT OF DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF A HOUSIN G PROJECT. SECTION 80IB IS A SPECIFIC PROVISION IN RESPECT OF PROFITS AND GAINS FROM UNDERTAKINGS ENGAGED IN DEVELOPING AND CONSTRUCTING HOUSING PROJ ECTS OTHER THAN INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT UNDERTAKINGS. THUS, HOUS ING PROJECTS CONSIDERED HEREIN UNDER SECTION 80IB REFERS TO ANY BUILDING OT HER THAN ROAD, BRIDGE OR OTHER STRUCTURE. THUS, GOING BY THE DEFINITION OF ' HOUSING PROJECT' TO MEAN THE CONSTRUCTION OF 'ANY BUILDING' AND THE DEDUCTIO N UNDER SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT IS HUNDRED PER CENT OF THE PROFITS DERIVED IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR FROM SUCH HOUSING P ROJECT COMPLYING WITH THE CONDITION, EACH BLOCK IN THE LARGER PROJECT BY NAME 'AGRINI' AND 'VAJRA', HAS TO BE TAKEN AS AN INDEPENDENT BUILDING AND HENCE A HOUSING PROJECT, FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSIDERING A CLAIM OF DEDUCTION. SECTION 80IB(10) BEGINS BY STATING: THUS THE UNDERTAKING QUALIFYING FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT IS AN 'UNDERTAKING DEVELOPING AND BUILDING HOUSING PROJECTS' AND THE DEDUCTION IS IN RESPECT OF 'PROFITS AND GAINS DERIV ED FROM' SUCH HOUSING PROJECT, SATISFYING THE CONDITIONS STIPULATED IN TH E CLAUSE THEREIN. THUS, WITHIN A COMPOSITE HOUSING PROJECT, WHERE THERE ARE ELIGIBLE AND INELIGIBLE UNITS, THE ASSESSEE CAN CLAIM DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF ELIGIBLE UNITS IN THE PROJECT AND EVEN WITHIN THE BLOCK, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM PROPORTIONATE RELIEF IN THE UNITS SATISFYING THE EX TENT OF THE BUILT-UP AREA. 14. ON THE FACTS ADMITTED BY THE REVENUE, IN THE PR OJECTS 'AGRINI' AND 'VAJRA', THERE ARE NUMBER OF FLATS WHICH ARE BELOW 1500 SQ.FT., AND THE RELEVANT BUILT-UP AREA REQUIREMENT IS SPECIFIED UND ER SECTION 80IB(10)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THUS, THE BUILT-UP AREA IN SOME OF THE FLATS IN BOTH THESE PROJECTS ARE IN EXCESS OF 1500 SQ.FT., I.E., 32 FLATS IN AGRINI AND ONLY ONE FLAT IN VAJRA AND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT CLA IMED ANY DEDUCTION ON THIS. WE HOLD THAT THE TRIBUNAL IS NOT CORRECT IN I TS VIEW, THAT BY REASON OF THESE UNITS BEING IN EXCESS OF 1500 SQ.FT., THE ENT IRE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THESE TWO PROJECTS WOULD STAND REJECTED UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THUS, GOING BY THE DEFINITION OF 'HOUSING PROJECT' UNDER EXPLANATION TO SECTION 80HHBA OF THE ACT AS REFERRED TO ABOVE AS THE CONSTRUCTION OF 'ANY BUILDING' AND THE WORDINGS IN SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT, THE QUESTION OF REJECTION IN E NTIRETY OF THE PROJECT ON ACCOUNT OF ANY ONE OF THE BLOCKS NOT COMPLYING WITH THE CONDITIONS, DOES NOT ARISE. EVEN IN THE CASE OF EACH ONE OF THE BLOCKS, WHEREVER THERE ARE FLATS WHICH SATISFIED THE CONDITIONS PARTICULARLY OF THE NATURE STATED UNDER SECTION 80IB(10)(C) OF THE ACT, WE HAVE ALREA DY UPHELD THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IN T.C.NOS.1348 AND 1349 OF 2007 DATED 10.10.2012 FOR GRANT ITA NOS 956 AND OTHERS MANJEERA PROJECTS HYDERABAD. PAGE 24 OF 32 OF RELIEF UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT ON A PR OPORTIONATE BASIS, BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT REP ORTED IN [2011] 333 ITR 289 (CIT VS. BRAHMA ASSOCIATES). THUS APPLYING THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN T.C.NOS.1348 AND 1349 OF 2007 DATED 10.10. 2012, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO SUCCEED BOTH ON THE PRINCIP LE OF PROPORTIONALITY AS WELL AS BY REASON OF THE CONSTRUCTION ON THE MEANIN G OF THE EXPRESSION 'HOUSING PROJECT' AS REFERRING TO CONSTRUCTION OF A NY BUILDING AND THE WORDINGS IN SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. IN THE CIR CUMSTANCES, WE HOLD THAT THE MERE FACT THAT ONE OF THE BLOCKS HAVE UNITS EXC EEDING BUILT-UP AREA OF 1500 SQ.FT, PER SE, WOULD NOT RESULT IN NULLIFYING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ENTIRE PROJECTS. CONSEQUENTLY, IN RESPECT OF EA CH OF THE BLOCKS, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO HAVE THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTI ON IN RESPECT OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS SATISFYING THE REQUIREMENT UNDER SECTION 80IB (10)(C) OF THE ACT. IN SO HOLDING, WE ALSO AGREE WITH THE DECISION OF THE BOM BAY HIGH COURT REPORTED IN [2012] 206 TAXMAN 584 (CIT V. VANDANA P ROPERTIES), WHICH WAS DECIDED BY THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT ON SIMILAR LIN ES AS IN THE ASSESSEE'S CASE BEFORE US'. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE HAD ADMITTEDLY COMPLETED FOUR BUILDINGS I.E. G, H, I & K AND HAS ALSO FURNISHED THE OCCUPAN CY CERTIFICATE DATED 29.3.2012. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS CLEARLY ELIGI BLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) ON THE PROFITS EARNED FROM THESE BUILDINGS . 30. THE NEXT QUESTION TO BE CONSIDERED IS WHETHER T HE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) ON THE PROFITS FROM BLOCKS F , K & L FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT OBTAINED THE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE FROM GHMC, HYDERABAD AS ON 30.03.2013 BUT HAS ALREADY SUBMITTE D AN APPLICATION FOR THE SAME. IT IS SEEN THAT ACCORDING TO THE ARCHITEC TS' CERTIFICATE, THE ASSESSEE HAS COMPLETED THE CONSTRUCTION IN ALL ASPECTS AND T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE APPLICATION FOR ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE AS ON 30.3.2013 BY PAYING THE REQUISITE FEES. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. HINDUSTAN ITA NOS SAMUH AWAS LTD REPORTE D IN (2015) 377 ITR 150 (BOM.) WHEREIN UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, IT WAS HELD THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS APPLIED FOR THE ISSUANCE OF COMPLETION CERTIFICATE BY PAYING THE FEES WITHIN THE SPECIFIED TIME, THE DELAY BY THE MU NICIPAL CORPORATION IN ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE CANNOT BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10). IN THE S AID CASE, THE ASSESSEE WAS SUPPOSED TO GET THE CERTIFICATE BEFORE 31ST MARCH, 2008 WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED APPLICATION ON 26.03.2008 AN D ALSO DEPOSITED THE FEE FOR SUCH CERTIFICATE ON 31.3.2008 AND THE CERTI FICATE WAS ISSUED IN OCTOBER, 2008. BASED ON THESE FACTS, THE HON'BLE HI GH COURT HELD THAT THE DELAY IN OBTAINING THE CERTIFICATE CANNOT BE ATTRIB UTED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US, HAS ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISI ON OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI M. SRINI VASA RAO VS. ACIT IN ITA NO.1049/HYD/2014 DATED 29.2.2016 WHICH IN TURN HAS FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. HINDUSTAN SAMUH AWAS LTD (SUPRA) TO HOLD THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE HA S APPLIED FOR ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE AND THE MUNICIPAL AUTHORIT IES DO NOT REFUSE TO ITA NOS 956 AND OTHERS MANJEERA PROJECTS HYDERABAD. PAGE 25 OF 32 ISSUE THE CERTIFICATE WITHIN 21 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF SUCH APPLICATION, THEN THE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE HAS TO BE PRESUMED TO HAVE BEEN ISSUED. IN THE CASE BEFORE US ALSO, THE ASSESSEE HA S MADE AN APPLICATION ON 30.03.2008 AND WITHIN 21 DAYS THEREAFTER, THE MUNIC IPAL AUTHORITIES DID NOT REFUSE THE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE AND THEREFORE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM HAS NOT BEEN DENIED AND HENCE HAS TO BE DEEME D TO HAVE BEEN ISSUED. IT IS ANOTHER FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE ITSELF MADE A FRESH APPLICATION AGAIN FOR ISSUANCE OF COMPLETION CERTIFICATE ON 28.05.2013, I N REPLY TO WHICH, THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VIDE LETTER DATED 13.06.2013 POINTED OUT CERTAIN DEFECTS, WHICH, IN OUR OPINION ARE NOT SUBSTANTIAL AND ESSENTIAL FOR CONSIDERING THE BLOCKS TO BE INCOMPLETE. THEY ARE O NLY PERIPHERAL WORKS, WHICH MAY BE PART OF THE HOUSING PROJECT BUT ARE NO T ESSENTIAL. THEREFORE, IN OUR OPINION, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO THE DEDUCT ION U/S 80IB(10) EVEN FOR THE BLOCKS OF F, K AND L. THUS, ASSESSEE'S GROUNDS OF APPEAL NOS. 1 TO 5 ARE ALLOWED. 31. THE OTHER GROUND OF THE REVENUE FOR DENYING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB IS THAT THE AREA IN SOME OF THE FLATS EXCEEDED 1500 SFT. AS HELD BY THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VISWAS PRO MOTERS (SUPRA), THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF THE FLATS WHICH DO NOT EXCEED THE AREA OF 1500 SFT ON PRO-RATA BASIS. THE AO IS A CCORDINGLY DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTION. 32. AS REGARDS THE CLAIM OF INTEREST INCOME, AS A D EDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS P LACED RELIANCE UPON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF CIT VS. INDO AQUATICS LTD REPORTED IN (2014) 369 ITR 589 (T&AP) WHEREIN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT THE INTEREST EARNED ON DEP OSITS FOR OPENING LETTERS OF CREDIT IS ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION AND THAT IT IS A N ESSENTIAL ACTIVITY FOR UNDERTAKING EXPORTS AS THE DEPOSIT OF AMOUNTS FOR T HAT PURPOSE IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT. IN THE CASE BEFORE US ALSO, TH E ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO KEEP THE DEPOSITS AS MARGIN MONEY WITH THE BANKS FO R COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT AND HENCE IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE PROJECT AN D THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) ON SUCH INTEREST INCOME. THE AO IS ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE SAME. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.6 I S ALSO ALLOWED. 33. FOR THESE TWO APPEALS, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY TH E ASSESSEE ARE THE SAME AS IN A.Y 2010-11 EXCEPT FOR THE QUANTUM. FOR THE D ETAILED REASONS GIVEN ABOVE, THESE APPEALS ARE ALSO ALLOWED. 6. MR DEVDASS NEXT ARGUMENT IS THAT SINCE THE LEAR NED COORDINATE BENCH HAS ALREADY CONSIDERED THE ASSESSE ES DEDUCTION CLAIM(S) REGARDING ALL THESE HOUSING PROJECTS IN LI GHT OF THE RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISION(S) AND SEC 455 OF THE HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT OF 1955 (SUPRA), DEEMED COMPLETION COMING FROM THE DATE OF FILING OF THE ARCHITECTS CERTIFICATE, WE OUGHT TO FOLLOW ITA NOS 956 AND OTHERS MANJEERA PROJECTS HYDERABAD. PAGE 26 OF 32 JUDICIAL CONSISTENCY AS PER THE HON'BLE APEX COURT S LANDMARK DECISION RADHASOAMI SATSANG VS. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321 (S.C). 7. LEARNED COUNSEL FURTHER SOUGHT TO EMPHASISE THE FACT THAT THE REVENUES IDENTICAL OBJECTIONS STAND REJEC TED IN THE COORDINATE BENCHS ORDER AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSE E VERY WELL DESERVES TO BE HELD ENTITLED FOR SEC 80IB (10) DEDU CTION. 8. LEARNED CIT-(DR), ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS DRAWN S TRONG SUPPORT FROM THE CIT (A)S DISCUSSION EXTRACTED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS. HE HAS FILED A DETAILED PAPER BOOK RUNN ING INTO 65 PAGES COMPRISING OF HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, PARTIA L OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE REGARDING BLOCK G, H, I, J, F, K AND L WITH ORIGINAL AND REVISED APPROVAL LETTERS ISSUED BY THE GHMC, ASSESS EES SCHEDULE OF ACCOUNT AND VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS. MR. SAI S CASE IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IS THAT T HE CIT (A) HAS RIGHTLY TREATED THE ASSESSEE AS HAVING A SINGLE RES IDENTIAL PROJECT INVOLVING ALL THE CORRESPONDING BLOCKS THAN THESE B LOCKS TO BE TREATED AS INDEPENDENT PROJECT(S) THEMSELVES. MR. S AI FURTHER SOUGHT TO DRAW OUR ATTENTION TO THE CBDTS CIRCULAR /INSTRUCTION NO.4/1999 REGARDING ELIGIBILITY OF SEC 80IB(10) DED UCTION. AND THAT THE ASSESSEE NOT HAVING COMPLETED ALL THESE PROJECT (S). HE ARGUED THAT WE OUGHT TO ADOPT STRICT INTERPRETATION WHILE DEALING WITH THE DEDUCTION PROVISION IN THE INSTANT TAXING STATUTE A S PER THE HONBLE APEX COURTS RECENT LANDMARK DECISION CCE ( IMPORT) VS M/S. DILIP KUMAR AND COMPANY (2018) 9 SCC 1 (S.C)(F B) 9. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO TH E FOREGOING RIVAL PLEADINGS. WE ARE OF THE OPINION TH AT NEITHER PARTYS SUBMISSIONS REGARDING THE IMPUGNED ISSUE OF SEC 80I B(10) ITA NOS 956 AND OTHERS MANJEERA PROJECTS HYDERABAD. PAGE 27 OF 32 DEDUCTION CLAIM(S) THEREIN, AS THE CASE MAY BE, DES ERVE TO BE ACCEPTED IN ENTIRETY. SO FAR AS THE REVENUES OBJEC TION(S) ARE CONCERNED THAT NONE OF THE ASSESSEES RESIDENTIAL P ROJECTS IS ELIGIBLE FOR THE IMPUGNED DEDUCTION, THERE IS HARDL Y ANY DISPUTE THAT THE LEARNED COORDINATE BENCH HAS ALREADY DECLI NED THE SAME REGARDING BLOCKS G, H, I, K, F, L IN THE FOREGOIN G DETAILED DISCUSSION IN PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS. MEANING THEREBY THAT ALL THESE REVENUES OBJECTIONS ARE PRESUMED TO HAVE BEE N RAISED AND DECLINED REGARDING THE CORRESPONDING CONDITIONS ENS HRINED IN SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. WE THEREFORE, ADOPT T HE FOREGOING DETAILED DISCUSSION MUTATIS MUTANDIS SO FAR AS THE ASSESSEES RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS, EXCEPT A, D AND E PROJE CTS ARE CONCERNED. THE REVENUES ARGUMENTS TO THIS EFFECT A RE REJECTED ACCORDINGLY. THE ASSESSEES CORRESPONDING GROUND IN THE ABOVE HOUSING PROJECTS STAND ACCEPTED. 10. NEXT COMES THE ASSESSEES REMAINING THREE HOUSI NG PROJECTS I.E. A, D AND E. BOTH THE LEARNED REPRESEN TATIVES ARE FAIR ENOUGH THAT THE SCHEDULED DATE OF COMPLETION OF THE SE THREE PROJECTS ALSO FALLS ON 31.3.2018 ONLY. LEARNED AR P LACED STRONG RELIANCE ON THE TRIBUNALS FINDINGS THAT IT HAS ALR EADY BEEN HELD TO BE ELIGIBLE AS PER PARA 33 IN A.Y 2011-12 AND 2012- 13 RESPECTIVELY. WE HOWEVER, NOTE THAT FROM A PERUSAL OF THE DEPARTMENTAL PAPER BOOK (PAGE 9 THEREIN) THAT THE A SSESSEE HAD FILED FOR THE CORRESPONDING BUILDINGS COMPLETION N OTICE ON 4.7.2014 ONLY I.E MUCH AFTER THAN THE SCHEDULED DAT E OF COMPLETION FALLING ON 31.3.2014. COMING TO THE EARN ED COUNSELS VEHEMENT CONTENTION THAT THE VERY ARGUMENT ALREADY STANDS ACCEPTED, WE OBSERVE THAT THE SAID DECISION NOWHERE TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION THE FOREGOING CLINCHING ASPECT OF THE ASSESSEE ITSELF ITA NOS 956 AND OTHERS MANJEERA PROJECTS HYDERABAD. PAGE 28 OF 32 HAVING FILED FOR COMPLETION CERTIFICATE IN JULY, 20 14 IN THE PRESCRIBED FORMAT. THE VEXED QUESTION BEFORE US NOW IS AS TO WHETHER THE FOREGOING LEARNED COORDINATE BENCHS WE LL PONDERED DECISION OUGHT TO BE TREATED AS A BINDING PRECEDENT OR NOT. WE FIND THAT THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS B.R. CONSTRUCTIONS ON 19 JUNE, 1992 ( 1993) 202 ITR 222 AP HOLDS THAT SUCH AN ADJUDICATION WHICH IS NOT BASED ON THE CORRECT APPRECIATION FACTS DOES NOT AMOUNT TO A BINDING PRECEDENT BEING PER INCURIAM AS FOLLOWS: 37. THE EFFECT OF BINDING PRECEDENTS IN INDIA IS TH AT THE DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT ARE BINDING ON ALL THE COURTS. IN DEED, ARTICLE 141 OF THE CONSTITUTION EMBODIES THE RULE OF PRECED ENT. ALL THE SUBORDINATE COURTS ARE BOUND BY THE JUDGMENTS OF TH E HIGH COURT. A SINGLE JUDGE OF A HIGH COURT IS BOUND BY THE JUDGME NT OF ANOTHER SINGLE JUDGE AND A FORTIORI JUDGMENTS OF BENCHES CO NSISTING OF MORE JUDGES THAN ONE. SO ALSO, A DIVISION BENCH OF A HIG H COURT IS BOUND BY JUDGMENTS OF ANOTHER DIVISION BENCH AND FULL . A SINGLE JUDGE OR BENCHES OF HIGH COURTS CANNOT DIFFER FROM THE EARLI ER JUDGMENTS OF CO-ORDINATE JURISDICTION MERELY BECAUSE THEY HOLD A DIFFERENT VIEW ON THE QUESTION OF LAW FOR THE REASON THAT CERTAINTY A ND UNIFORMITY IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE ARE OF PARAMOUNT IMPO RTANCE. BUT, IF THE EARLIER JUDGMENT IS ERRONEOUS OR ADHERENCE TO T HE RULE OF PRECEDENTS RESULTS IN MANIFEST INJUSTICE, DIFFERING FROM THE EARLIER JUDGMENT WILL BE PERMISSIBLE. WHEN A DIVISION BENCH DIFFERS FROM THE JUDGMENT OF ANOTHER DIVISION BENCH, IT HAS TO R EFER THE CASE TO A FULL BENCH. A SINGLE JUDGE CANNOT DIFFER FROM A DEC ISION OF A DIVISION BENCH EXCEPT WHEN THAT DECISION OR A JUDGM ENT RELIED UPON IN THAT DECISION IS OVERRULED BY A FULL BENCH OR TH E SUPREME COURT, OR WHEN THE LAW LAID DOWN BY A FULL BENCH OR THE SU PREME COURT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE DECISION. 38. IT MAY BE NOTICED THAT PRECEDENT CEASES TO BE A BINDING PRECEDENT - (I) IF IT IS REVERSED OR OVERRULED BY A HIGHER COUR T, (II) WHEN IT IS AFFIRMED OR REVERSED ON A DIFFERENT GROUND, (III) WHEN IT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE EARLIER DECI SIONS OF THE SAME RANK, (IV) WHEN IT IS SUB SILENTIO, AND ITA NOS 956 AND OTHERS MANJEERA PROJECTS HYDERABAD. PAGE 29 OF 32 (V) WHEN IT IS RENDERED PER INCURIAM. 39. IN PARAGRAPH 578 AT PAGE 297 OF HALSBURY'S LAWS OF ENGLAND, FOURTH EDITION, THE RULE OF PER INCURIAM IS STATED AS FOLLOWS : 'A DECISION IS GIVEN PER INCURIAM WHEN THE COURT HA S ACTED IN IGNORANCE OF A PREVIOUS DECISION OF ITS OWN OR OF A COURT OF CO- ORDINATE JURISDICTION WHICH COVERED THE CASE BEFORE IT, IN WHICH CASE IT MUST DECIDED WHICH CASE TO FOLLOW; OR WHEN IT HA S ACTED IN IGNORANCE OF A HOUSE OF LORDS DECISION, IN WHICH CA SE IT MUST FOLLOW THAT DECISION; OR WHEN THE DECISION IS GIVEN IN IGN ORANCE OF THE TERMS OF A STATUTE OR RULE HAVING STATUTORY FORCE.' 40. IN PUNJAB LAND DEVELOPMENT AND RECLAMATION CORP ORATION LTD. V. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT , THE SUPREME CO URT EXPLAINED THE EXPRESSION 'PER INCURIAM' THUS (AT PAGE 36 OF 7 7 FJR) : 'THE LATIN EXPRESSION PER INCURIAM MEANS THROUGH IN ADVERTENCE. A DECISION CAN BE SAID GENERALLY TO BE GIVEN PER INCU RIAM WHEN THE SUPREME COURT HAS ACTED IN IGNORANCE OF A PERVIOUS DECISION OF ITS OWN OR WHEN A HIGH COURT HAS ACTED IN IGNORANCE OF A DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT.' 42. AS HAS BEEN NOTICED ABOVE, A JUDGMENT CAN BE SA ID TO BE PER INCURIAM IF IT IS RENDERED IN IGNORANCE OR FORGETFU LNESS OF THE PROVISIONS OF A STATUTE OR A RULE HAVING STATUTORY FORCE OR A BINDING AUTHORITY. BUT, IF THE PROVISION OF THE ACT WAS NOT ICED AND CONSIDERED BEFORE THE CONCLUSION ARRIVED AT, ON THE GROUND THA T IT HAS ERRONEOUSLY REACHED THE CONCLUSION THE JUDGMENT CAN NOT BE IGNORED AS BEING PER INCURIAM. IN SALMOND ON JURISPRUDENCE, TWELFTH EDITION, AT PAGE 151, THE RULE IS SATED AS FOLLOWS : 'THE MERE FACT THAT (AS IS CONTENDED) THE EARLIER C OURT MISCONSTRUED A STATUTE, OR IGNORED A RULE OF CONSTRUCTION, IS NO GROUND FOR IMPUGNING THE AUTHORITY OF THE PRECEDENT. A PRECEDE NT ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF A STATUTE IS AS MUCH BINDING AS ANY OTHER, AND THE FACT THAT IT WAS MISTAKEN IN ITS REASONING DOES NOT DESTROY ITS BINDING FORCE.' 43. IN CHOUDHRY BROTHERS' CASE , AS NOTICED ABOVE, THE DIVISION BENCH TREATED THE JUDGMENT IN CH. ATCHAIAH'S CASE , AS PER INCURIAM ON THE GROUND THAT THE EARLIER DIVISION BENCH DID N OT NOTICE THE SIGNIFICANT CHANGES THE CHARGING SECTION 3 HAS UNDE RGONE BY THE OMISSION OF THE WORDS 'OR THE PARTNERS OF THE FIRM OR THE MEMBERS OF THE ASSOCIATION INDIVIDUALLY'-. IN OUR VIEW, THIS C ANNOT BE A GROUND TO TREAT AN EARLIER JUDGMENT AS PER INCURIAM. THE C HANGE IN THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT WAS PRESENT IN THE MIND OF TH E COURT WHICH DECIDED CH. ATCHAIAH'S CASE . MERELY BECAUSE THE CO NCLUSION ARRIVED AT ON CONSTRUING THE PROVISIONS OF THE CHARGING SEC TION UNDER THE OLD ITA NOS 956 AND OTHERS MANJEERA PROJECTS HYDERABAD. PAGE 30 OF 32 ACT AS WELL AS UNDER THE NEW ACT DID NOT HAVE THE C ONCURRENCE OF THE LATTER BENCH, THE EARLIER JUDGMENT CANNOT BE CALLED PER INCURIAM. 44. THOUGH A JUDGMENT RENDERED PER INCURIAM CAN BE IGNORED EVEN BY A LOWER COURT, YET IT APPEARS THAT SUCH A COURSE OF ACTION WAS NOT APPROVED BY THE HOUSE OF LORDS IN CASSELL AND CO. L TD. V. BROOME [1972] 1 ALL ER 801, WHEREIN THE HOUSE OF LORDS DIS APPROVED THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEAL TREATING AN EARLIER JUDGMENT OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS AS PER INCURIAM. LORD HAILSHAM OBSER VED (AT PAGE 809) : 'IT IS NOT OPEN TO THE COURT OF APPEAL TO GIVE GRAT UITOUS ADVICE TO JUDGES OF FIRST INSTANCE TO IGNORE DECISIONS OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS IN THIS WAY.' 11. MR. DEVDAS ONCE AGAIN SOUGHT TO REITERATE THE P OINT THAT THE ASSESSEES ARCHITECT HAD DULY APPLIED FOR COMPLETION OF THE IMPUGNED PROJECT AS PER THE FOREGOING HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT (SUPRA) ON 30.3.2013. AND THAT THE DELAY IN ISSUE WAS AT THE CORPORATIONS END ONLY WHICH WOULD NOT B E FATAL TO THE IMPUGNED DEDUCTION CLAIM IN VIEW OF THE LEARNED COO RDINATE BENCHS FINDINGS DEALING WITH THE ISSUE OF DEEMED C OMPLETION (SUPRA). WE FIND NO SUBSTANCE IN THE ASSESSEES LAS T ARGUMENT AS WELL SINCE THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION HEREIN HAS DUL Y PRESCRIBED FOR THE CORRESPONDING COMPLETION CERTIFICATE PROCED URE, STEP-WISE, WHEREIN THE CONCERNED APPLICANT MUST ENSURE ALL THE NECESSARY COMPLIANCE. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PLACE D ON RECORD ANY CORRESPONDING CLINCHING DOCUMENT TO THIS EFFECT AS TO WHETHER IT HAD FILED THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE IN THE PRES CRIBED FORMAT OR NOT. WE MUST ALSO EMPHASIZE HEREIN THAT THE SAID PR ESCRIBED PROFORMA MAKES IT MANDATORY FOR AN APPLICANT TO SUB MIT BUILDING COMPLETION NOTICE WHICH WAS SUBMITTED ON 4.7.2014 ONLY (SUPRA). WE THUS ADOPT A DIFFERENT APPROACH HEREIN REGARDING THE ASSESSEES IMPUGNED SEC 80IB(10) EXPLANATION (I), ( II) DEDUCTION CLAIM(S) PERTAINING TO ITS A, D AND E HOUSIN G PROJECTS. ITA NOS 956 AND OTHERS MANJEERA PROJECTS HYDERABAD. PAGE 31 OF 32 LEARNED LOWER AUTHORITIES ACTION REJECTING THE SAME STANDS UPHELD. 12. LASTLY COMES THE ISSUE OF PROPORTIONATE SECTION 80IB(10) DEDUCTION CLAIM. LEARNED COORDINATE BENCH HAS ALREADY UPHELD THE ASSESSEES CLAIM IN PARA 31. WE THEREFOR E DIRECT THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY TO FRAME ITS CONSEQUENTIAL COMP UTATION AS PER LAW I.E. HE SHALL REITERATE HIS IMPUGNED SEC 80IB ( 10) DISALLOWANCE QUA BLOCKS A, D AND E AND DELETE THE SAME PER TAINING TO G, H, I, K, F, K AND L IN FOREGOING TERMS. 13. WE FURTHER MAKE IT CLEAR BEFORE THE PARTIES THA T BOTH THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES HAD PLACED RECORD A CAT ENA OF CASELAW BEFORE US REGARDING THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF INTERPR ETATION AND MULTI-DIMENSIONAL FACETS OF THE IMPUGNED SEC 80IB(1 0) DEDUCTION CLAIM. THE SAME ARE NOT DEALT WITH SPECIFICALLY IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HEREIN HAS NOT COMPLETED ITS CORR ESPONDING HOUSING BLOCK(S)/PROJECTS WITHIN THE STIPULATED DE ADLINE FALLING 31.3.2013. NO OTHER GROUND HAS BEEN PRESSED BEFORE US. THE ASSESSEES FOUR APPEALS ARE PARTLY ALLOWED IN ABOVE TERMS. A COPY OF THIS COMMON ORDERS BE PLACED IN THE RESPECTIVE F ILES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 8 TH SEPTEMBER,2021. SD/- SD/- (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (S.S. GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 8 TH SEPTEMBER, 2021. VINODAN/SPS ITA NOS 956 AND OTHERS MANJEERA PROJECTS HYDERABAD. PAGE 32 OF 32 COPY TO: S.NO ADDRESSES 1 MANJEERA PROJECTS, C/O B NARSING RAO & CO. C.A, P LOT NO.554, ROAD NO.92, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD 500096 2 ASSTT. CIT CIRCLE 6(1), HYDERABAD 3 CIT (A)-6,HYDERABAD 4 PR. CIT -6, HYDERABAD 5 DR, ITAT HYDERABAD BENCHES 6 GUARD FILE BY ORDER
Other Referred Cases
-
Laws Referred To
-
Guide to Charitable Trusts: Formation, Benefits, and Compliance
₹0
1:1 Consultation on Tax Litigation
₹0
1:1 Consultation on Business Development
₹1
Affidavit - Application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before ITAT - Type 2
Mehul₹0
Declaration of Gift
Mehul₹500
SEBI Resets Mutual Fund Rules: A Structural Shift for Investors
Team Counselvise - March 13, 2026
Transfer Pricing and International Tax Reforms under Finance Bill, 2026: A Practical Overview
Team Counselvise - February 07, 2026
Why Lacoste Won a 20-Year Trademark Battle Against Crocodile ?
Team Counselvise - March 10, 2026