M/s Kumar Company., Pune V. Addl CIT Rg- 5 Pune, Pune

ITA 1652/PUN/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2949 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 31-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 08-08-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HINTENDRA NINAWE
• Keywords: Value adopted by valuation officer

Judgement Text

] IQ.KS ] IQ.KS ] IQ.KS ] IQ.KS IQ.KS IQ.KSIQ.KS IQ.KS IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE . . , , ' # BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM . / ITA NO.1652/PN/2012 '% % / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 M/S. KUMAR COMPANY CAPITAL, IST FLOOR, 2413, EAST STREET, PUNE 411 001 PAN NO.AABFK9106A . / APPELLANT V/S ADDL.CIT, RANGE-5, PUNE . / RESPONDENT / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAJENDRA AGIWAL / DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI HINTENDRA NINAWE / ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE O RDER DATED 30-03-2012 OF THE CIT(A)-III, PUNE RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 007-08. 2. THIS APPEAL WAS EARLIER DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORD ER DATED 30- 04-2014. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE FILED A MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION STATING THAT ONE OF THE ISSUES, I.E. DISALLOWANCE U/S.80IB(10) IN RESPECT OF THE HOUSING PROJECT KUMAR PADMALAYA REMAINED UNADJUD ICATED. THE TRIBUNAL VIDE M.A.NOS. 75 & 76/PN/2014 ORDER DATED 22-05- 2015 RECALLED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF DECIDIN G THE ABOVE ISSUE. HENCE, THIS IS A RECALLED MATTER. / DATE OF HEARING :31.12.2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:06.01.2016 2 ITA NO.1652/PN/2012 3. THE GROUNDS RELATING TO DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S.80 IB(10) IN RESPECT OF HOUSING PROJECT KUMAR PADMALAYA ARE AS UNDER : ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) 6. ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION /S.80IB(10) OF THE ACT OF RS.1,01,94,782/- IN RESPECT OF A HOUSING PROJECT KUMAR PADMALAYA. 7. SHOULD HAVE APPRECIATED THAT DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(1 0) OF THE ACT, IS AVAILABLE, IF HOUSING PROJECT ON STANDALONE BASIS SATISF Y ALL THE CONDITIONS OF THE SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT, THE DEDUCTION IS TO BE A LLOWED. 4. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE, IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) IN RESPECT OF 3 PROJEC TS NAMELY, PADMALAYA, PRAGATI AND PRIYADARSHAN. IN ORDER TO EXAMINE THE ALLOW ABILITY OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) IN RESPECT OF THESE 3 PROJECTS THE AO REFERR ED THE MATTER FOR VERIFICATION BY THE GOVERNMENT APPROVED VALUE R. THE DVO REPORTED THAT THE PROJECT PADMALAYA WHICH IS OVER AN AREA OF LAND OF 3.46 ACRES STARTED COMMENCEMENT ON 11-12-2000. HOWEVER, B UILDING NOS. A02, B04, B05, AND B06 WERE NOT COMPLETED AS ON 31-03- 2008. ACCORDING TO THE AO SINCE THE PROJECT WAS SANCTIONED PRIOR TO 01 -04-2004 THE PROJECT SHOULD HAVE BEEN COMPLETED ON OR BEFORE 31-03-2008. F URTHER, AS PER EXPLANATION II OF SECTION 80IB(10)(A), THE DATE OF COMPLETIO N OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSING PROJECT SHALL BE TAKEN TO BE THE DATE ON WHICH THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF SUCH HOUSING PROJ ECT IS ISSUED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY. SINCE IN RESPECT OF THE HOUSING PROJEC T PADMALAYA THE FINAL COMPLETION CERTIFICATE WAS NOT ISSUED BY THE LOCAL AUTH ORITY ON OR BEFORE 31-03-2008, THEREFORE, THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) IN RESPECT OF THE PR OJECT PADMALAYA SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED. THE ASSESSEE SUBMI TTED THAT IF THE PORTIONS A02, B04, B05 AND B06 BUILDINGS WHICH WERE NOT C OMPLETED ARE SEGREGATED FROM THE REST OF THE PORTION, THE REST OF THE PORTION 3 ITA NO.1652/PN/2012 INDEPENDENTLY SATISFY ALL THE CONDITIONS OF SECTION 80IB(10). RELYING ON VARIOUS DECISIONS IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE BE ALLOWED PROPORTIONATE DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10). 5. HOWEVER, THE AO WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) IS GRANTED TO ANY PROJECT AS A PACKAGE SUBJECT TO FULFILLMENT OF ALL CONDITIONS STIPULATED IN THE SUB-SECTION. THE ENTITLED RESIDENTIAL PROJECT IS ALSO APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY AS A SINGLE PROJECT WHICH CANNOT BE SUBSE QUENTLY AND ARTIFICIALLY BROKEN INTO PIECES AT THE WILL OF THE ASSESSEE. A CCORDING TO THE AO FOR THE PURPOSE OF GRANTING DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) ALL RELEVANT FACTS HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED IN RESPECT OF WHETHER THE WHOLE R ESIDENTIAL PROJECT, AS APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY, FULFILS ALL THE CONDITIONS U /S.80IB(10). PART FULFILLMENT OF THE CONDITIONS DISENTITLES THE ASSESSEE FRO M CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10). SIMILARLY IF ONLY PART OF A PROJECT COMPLIED WITH THE CONDITIONS U/S.80IB(10) AND THE BALANCE PART DOES NO T COMPLY, THE ASSESSEE WILL AGAIN BE DISENTITLED FROM CLAIMING THE SAID DEDUCTION. 6. AS REGARDS THE VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BY THE ASSESS EE THE AO HELD THAT ALL THOSE DECISIONS HAVE BEEN CHALLENGED BY THE DEPA RTMENT. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH THE COMPLETION CONDIT ION U/S.80IB(10)(A)(I) IN RESPECT OF THE PADMALAYA PROJECT THE AO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIMING OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) IN RESPECT OF THE PROJECT. HE ACCORDINGLY REJECTED THE CLAIM OF DEDUC TION U/S.80IB(10) AMOUNTING TO RS.1,01,94,782/- U/S.80IB(10) IN RESPECT OF THE PADMALAYA PROJECT. 7. IN APPEAL THE LD.CIT(A) UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE AO. WH ILE DOING SO, HE DISTINGUISHED THE VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BY THE ASSES SEE AND HELD THAT THOSE DECISIONS WERE RENDERED ON A DIFFERENT SET OF FACTS AND IN ALL THOSE 4 ITA NO.1652/PN/2012 CASES THE PROFITS WERE DERIVED FROM APPROVED HOUSING PRO JECTS AND IN THAT CONTEXT IT WAS HELD THAT DEDUCTION CAN BE ALLOWED ON STA NDALONE BASIS OR PROPORTIONATE BASIS, IF OTHER CONDITIONS FOR AVAILING THE BENE FIT OF DEDUCTION ARE COMPLIED WITH. RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE CHENNAI B ENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. VISWAS PROMOTERS PVT. L TD. REPORTED IN 126 ITD 263 AND VARIOUS OTHER DECISIONS HE REJECTED TH E CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IN CASE OF NON COMPLETION OF FEW UNITS IN A H OUSING PROJECT THE ENTIRE DEDUCTION CANNOT BE REFUSED BUT PRO-RATA D EDUCTION HAS TO BE GRANTED. 8. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 9. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE OUTSET SUBM ITTED THAT THE DECISION OF THE CHENNAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE O F VISWAS PROMOTERS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) RELIED ON BY THE CIT(A) HAS BEE N REVERSED BY THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT WHICH HAS BEEN REPORTED AS 255 CTR 149. IN THE SAID DECISION IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT WITHIN COMPOSIT E HOUSING PROJECT WHERE THERE ARE ELIGIBLE AND INELIGIBLE UNITS THE ASSESSEE CAN CLAIM DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF THE ELIGIBLE UNITS IN THE PROJECT AN D EVEN WITHIN THE BLOCK THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM PROPORTIONATE RELIEF IN THE UNITS SATISFYING THE EXTENT OF THE BUILT UP AREA. REFERRING TO T HE DECISION OF THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF PADMAVATI DEVELO PERS VS. DCIT HE SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL, AFTER CONSIDERING VARIOUS DECISIONS, HAS ALLOWED PROPORTIONATE DEDUCTION. HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE NOW STANDS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE , THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ALLOWED. 10. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER H AND HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE 5 ITA NO.1652/PN/2012 BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. BRAHMA ASSOCIAT ES REPORTED IN 197 TAXMANN 459 HE SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COU RT IN THE SAID DECISION HAS HELD THAT SECTION 80IB(10) ALLOWS DEDUCTION TO THE ENTIRE PROJECT APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY AND NOT TO A P ART OF THE PROJECT. THEREFORE, PRO-RATA DEDUCTION CANNOT BE ALLOWED WHERE SO ME OF THE UNITS ARE INCOMPLETE OR DO NOT COMPLY WITH THE CONDITIONS LAID D OWN IN SECTION 80IB(10). 11. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN HIS REJOINDER SUB MITTED THAT THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF BRAHMA ASSOCIATES (SUPRA) ARE DISTING UISHABLE AND NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. IN THAT CAS E, THE ISSUE WAS RELATING TO COMMERCIAL AREA OF MORE THAN 10% OF THE PLOT AREA AND NOT PRO- RATA DEDUCTION. THEREFORE, THE SAID DECISION IS NOT APPLICAB LE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. 12. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOT H THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND CIT(A) AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE VARIO US DECISIONS CITED BEFORE US. THE ONLY DISPUTE IN THE IMPUGNED GROUN DS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS REGARDING ALLOWABILITY OF PRO-RATA DEDUCTION U/S .80IB(10) IN RESPECT OF THE HOUSING PROJECT KUMAR PADMALAYA WHERE ADMITTEDLY SOME OF THE UNITS HAVE NOT BEEN COMPLETED BEFORE 31-03-2008 . ACCORDING TO THE REVENUE, FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) THE ASSESSEE HA S TO FULFIL ALL THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN SECTION 80IB(10) AND THERE IS N O CONCEPT OF PRO-RATA DEDUCTION. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE IT IS ENT ITLED TO PRO-RATA DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) IN RESPECT OF THE UNITS WHICH FULFILL TH E CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN SECTION 80IB(10). 6 ITA NO.1652/PN/2012 13. WE FIND THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F VISWAS PROMOTERS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) WHILE ALLOWING PROPORTIONATE DEDU CTION U/S.80IB(10) HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER : 14. ON THE FACTS ADMITTED BY THE REVENUE, IN THE P ROJECTS 'AGRINI' AND 'VAJRA', THERE ARE NUMBER OF FLATS WHICH ARE BELOW 1 500 SQ.FT., AND THE RELEVANT BUILT-UP AREA REQUIREMENT IS SPECIFIED UNDERSECTION 8 0IB(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 ONL Y ONE FLAT IN VAJRA AND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT CLAIMED ANY DEDUCTION ON THIS. WE H OLD THAT THE TRIBUNAL IS NOT CORRECT IN ITS VIEW, THAT BY REASON OF THESE UNI TS BEING IN EXCESS OF 1500 SQ.FT., THE ENTIRE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF TH ESE TWO PROJECTS WOULD STAND REJECTED UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THUS, GOING BY THE DEFINITION OF 'HOUSING PROJECT' UNDER EXPLANATIO N TO SECTION 80HHBA OF THE ACT AS REFERRED TO ABOVE AS THE CONSTRUCTION OF 'ANY B UILDING' AND THE WORDINGS IN SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT, THE QUESTION OF REJE CTION IN ENTIRETY OF THE PROJECT ON ACCOUNT OF ANY ONE OF THE BLOCKS NOT COMP LYING WITH THE CONDITIONS, DOES NOT ARISE. EVEN IN THE CASE OF EACH ONE OF THE BL OCKS, WHEREVER THERE ARE FLATS WHICH SATISFIED THE CONDITIONS PARTICULARLY OF T HE 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 10.10.20 12 FOR GRANT OF RELIEF UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT ON A PROPORTIONAT E BASIS, BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT REPORTED IN [2011] 333 ITR 289 (CIT VS. BRAHMA ASSOCIATES). THUS APPLYING THE DECISION OF THIS CO URT 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 PRINCIPLE OF PROPORTIONALITY AS W ELL AS BY REASON OF THE CONSTRUCTION ON THE MEANING OF THE EXPRESSION 'HOUSING PROJECT' AS REFERRING TO CONSTRUCTION OF ANY BUILDING AND THE WORDINGS IN SEC TION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE HOLD THAT THE MERE FACT THAT ONE OF THE BLOCKS HAVE UNITS EXCEEDING BUILT-UP AREA OF 1500 SQ.FT, PER SE, WOULD NOT RESULT IN NULLIFYING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ENTIRE PRO JECTS. CONSEQUENTLY, IN RESPECT OF EACH OF THE BLOCKS, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED T O HAVE THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS SATISFYING TH E REQUIREMENT UNDER SECTION 80IB(10)(C) OF THE ACT. IN SO HOLDING, WE ALSO AGREE WITH THE DECISION OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT REPORTED IN [2012] 206 TAXMAN 584 (CIT V. VANDANA PROPERTIES), WHICH WAS DECIDED BY THE BOM BAY HIGH COURT ON SIMILAR LINES AS IN THE ASSESSEE'S CASE BEFORE US. 15. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE REASONING, WE HAVE NO HESITATION IN ALLOWING THE CASES CASES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 AND 2008-09, THEREBY ANSWE RING THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF ALL THE BLOCKS FORMI NG PART OF THE PROJECTS CALLED AGRINI AND VAJRA, BUT TO THE EXTENT OF EACH OF THE BLOCKS SATISFYING THE CONDITIONS UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT, THE ASSE SSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO THE RELIEF ON A PROPORTIONATE BASIS. 14. WE FIND FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF PADMAVATI DEVELOPERS (SUPRA) HAS DECIDED TH E ISSUE OF PRO- RATA DEDUCTION IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING THAT ASSESSEE IS 7 ITA NO.1652/PN/2012 ENTITLED TO PRO-RATA DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF THE RESIDENT IAL UNITS WHICH HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE CONDITIONS AND WERE ELIGIBLE FOR THE D EDUCTION U/S.80IB(10). THE RELEVANT OBSERVATION OF THE TRIBUNAL AT P ARAS 36 TO 38 OF THE ORDER READ AS UNDER : 36. NOW, COMING TO THE SECOND HOUSING PROJECT IN SEC TOR NO.7. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 HAS COMPLETED ONLY 2 BUI LDINGS I.E. Q-1, Q-2 AND SOME FLATS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. THE BUILDI NG COMPRISED IN P-1 TO P-6 AND THE ROW HOUSES HAVE NOT BEEN CONSTRUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE TILL THE DATE OF SURVEY AND UPTO 31.03.2008. 37. THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN VISWAS PROMOTERS P VT. LTD. VS. ACIT, (2013) 255 CTR 149 (MAD.) HAVE LAID DOWN THAT WITHI N A COMPOSITE HOUSING PROJECT, WHERE THERE ARE ELIGIBLE AND INELLIGIBLE U NITS, 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 A GAINST THE UNITS SATISFYING THE EXTENT OF BUILT-UP AREA. 38. SIMILAR PROPOSITION HAS BEEN LAID DOWN BY THE BAN GALORE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN DCIT VS. BRIGADE ENTERPRISES (P.) LTD., ( 2008) 119 TTJ 269 (BANG) AND THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN RUNWAL MULTIH OUSING PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT IN ITA NOS.1015, 1016 AND 1017/PN/2011 RELATING TO A SSESSMENT YEARS 2003- 04 TO 2005-06, ORDER DATED 21.11.2012. FOLLOWING TH E SAME PARITY OF REASONING, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO PRO- RATA DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN THE HOUSING PROJECT NO. 7, WHICH HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE CONDITIONS AND WERE ELIGIBLE FOR THE DEDUCT ION UNDER SECTION 80- IB(10) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE SAID DEDUCTION IS ALL OWABLE TO THE ASSESSEE ONLY IN RESPECT OF UNITS CONSTRUCTION OF WHICH HAS BEEN COM PLETED UPTO 31ST MARCH, 2008. ACCORDINGLY, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO V ERIFY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 AND 2007- 08 AND IF THE ASSESSEE HAS FULFILLED THE AFORESAID CONDITIONS UNDER SECTI ON 80-IB(10) OF THE ACT, PRO-RATA DEDUCTION UNDER THE SAID SECTION COULD BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE IN RELATION TO THE BUILDINGS / FLATS COMPLETED IN SEC TOR NO.7. CONSEQUENTLY, THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED . 15. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE HOLD THAT THE ASS ESSEE IS ENTITLED TO PRO-RATA DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF THE BUILDINGS/UNITS OF THE HOUSING PROJECT KUMAR PADMALAYA WHICH HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE C ONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. IN OTHER WORDS, THE AO CANNOT REJECT THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) OF THE ENTIRE PROJECT FO R NON- COMPLETION OF THE FEW BUILDINGS. WE THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE AO TO ALLOW PRO-RATA DEDUCTION CLA IMED U/S.80IB(10) IN RESPECT OF PROJECT KUMAR PADMALAYA. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 8 ITA NO.1652/PN/2012 16. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 06-01-2016. SD/- SD/- ( VIKAS AWASTHY ) ( R.K. PANDA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IQ.KS PUNE ; # DATED : 06 TH JANUARY 2016. LRH'K ( )'+ , / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. CIT (A) - I II , PUNE 4. 5. 6. CIT-III, PUNE ' *, *, IQ.KS / DR, ITAT, B PUNE; / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER , ' //TRUE COPY// / * / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY *, IQ.KS / ITAT, PUNE