Devashri Nirman LLP, Panaji V. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Panaji

ITA 22/PAN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 93570 (ITAT-PANAJI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 14-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 08-01-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANAND SHANKAR MARATHE
• Keywords: Question of law
• Section: 80IB; 6

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI , HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO S . 1 9 TO 23 /PNJ/201 5 (ASST. YEAR S : 200 7 - 0 8 , 2008 - 09, 2009 - 10, 2010 - 11 & 2011 - 12 ) M/S. DEVASHRI NIRMAN LLP (FORMERLY M/S. DEVASHRI REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS), 2 ND FLOOR, DEMPO HOUSE, D.B. BANDODKAR MARG, CAMPAL, PANAJI GOA. VS. A CIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), PANAJI. PAN NO. AABFD 2012 N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO S . 62 TO 65 /PNJ/201 5 (ASST. YEAR S : 200 7 - 0 8, 2009 - 10, 2010 - 11 & 2011 - 12 ) A CIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), PANAJI. VS. M/S. DEVASHRI NIRMAN LLP (FORMERLY M/S. DEVASHRI REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS), 2 ND FLOOR, DEMPO HOUSE, D.B. BANDODKAR MARG, CAMPAL, PANAJI GOA. PAN NO. AABFD 2012 N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI HUBERT FERNANDES MANAGER (FINANCE) . DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI ANAND SHANKAR MARATHE - D R DATE OF HEARING : 14 / 0 7 /2015 . DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14 / 0 7 /201 5 . O R D E R PER N.S. SAINI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.NOS. 19 TO 23/PNJ/2015 AND I.T.A.NOS. 62 TO 65/PNJ/2015 ARE THE CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE AGAINST THE 2 ITA NO S . 19 - 23 & 62 - 65/PNJ/2015 ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) , PANAJI, DATED 0 5 / 11 /201 4 . 2. IN ALL THE APPEALS, THE COMMON GROUND OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN DISALLOWING PROPORTIONATE DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 80IB OF THE ACT. 3 . THE COMMON GROUND OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE REVENUE IN ALL THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION IS THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN DIRECTIN G THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 80IB (10) ON PROPORTIONATE BASIS. 4 . THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE TH AT THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 THAT I N T H E HOUSING PROJECT CONSTRUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE KNOWN AS DEVASHRI GARDEN PHASE I, (BUILDING C), SOCCORO , SOME OF THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS CONSTRUCTED WERE MORE THAN 2000 SQ.FT. AND AS PER SEC . 80IB(1), THE MAXIMUM BUILT UP AREA PERMISSIBLE FOR RESIDENTIAL UNIT IS 1500 SQ.FT. 5. SIMILARLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT I N THE HOUSING PROJECT CONSTRUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE KNOWN AS VASANT VIHAR, (BUILDING A), CARANZALEM , THE ASSESSEE HAS CONSTRUCTED SOME RESIDENTIAL UNITS WHICH ARE MORE THAN 2000 SQ.FT. AND THE MAXIMUM BUILT UP AREA PERMISSIBLE FOR RESIDENTIAL UNIT AS PER SEC. 80IB(10) IS 1500 SQ.FT. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 80IB(10) TO THE ASSESSEE O F RS. 2,68,91,765/ - . 6. FOR THE VERY SAME REASON, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 80 I B(10) O F RS. 3, 7 7 , 3 4 , 4 3 7 / - IN THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2008 - 09 . 3 ITA NO S . 19 - 23 & 62 - 65/PNJ/2015 7. FOR THE SAME REASON, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 80IB(10) TO THE ASSESSEE O F RS. 4,88,68,508/ - IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 . 8. FOR THE SIMILAR REASON, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 80IB(10) TO THE ASSESSEE O F RS. 3,70,82,503/ - IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 . 9. SIMILARLY, IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 80IB(10) OF RS. 2,80,36,365/ - . 10. ON APPEAL , THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) HELD THAT THE DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 80IB(10) WAS ALLOWABLE TO THE ASSESSEE ON PROPORTIONATE BASIS FOR THE UNITS CONSTRUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH WERE OF 1500 SQ.FT. AND LES S B Y FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. V I S H W A S P R O M O T E R S P V T . LTD . VS. ACIT I N T . C . ( A P P E A L ) N O . 1 0 1 4 / 2 0 0 9 O R D E R D A T E D 0 2 / 1 1 / 2 0 1 2 . 11. B E I N G AGGRIEVED B Y T H I S O R D E R O F T H E COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) , B O T H T H E ASSESSEE A N D T H E R E V E N U E A R E I N A P P E A L B E F O R E U S . 1 2 . T H E R E V E N U E I S I N A P P E A L B E F O R E U S F O R A L L O W I N G D E D U C T I O N UNDER SEC. 8 0 I B ( 1 0 ) T O T H E ASSESSEE O N P R O P O R T I O N A T E B A S I S A N D T H E ASSESSEE I S I N A P P E A L B E F O R E U S A G A I N S T T H E O R D E R O F COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) F O R D I S A L L O W I N G T H E D E D U C T I O N UNDER SEC. 8 0 I B ( 1 0 ) O N P R O P O R T I O N A T E B A S I S . 1 3 . T H E DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE R E L I E D O N T H E O R D E R O F T H E ASSESSING OFFICER . 4 ITA NO S . 19 - 23 & 62 - 65/PNJ/2015 1 4 . O N T H E O T H E R H A N D , T H E AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE S U B M I T T E D T H A T T H E ASSESSEE D E V E L O P E D A N D S O L D T H E F L A T S I N L I N E W I T H A P P R O V E D P L A N S / C O N S T R U C T I O N L I C E N S E / O C C U P A N C Y C E R T I F I C A T E I S S U E D B Y T H E C O M P E T E N T / S T A T U T O R Y A U T H O R I T I E S A N D A G R E E M E N T F O R S A L E E N T E R E D B Y T H E B U I L D E R S / D E V E L O P E R S W I T H PURCHASE R S . H E A R G U E D T H A T I N ADDITION T O A D H E R E N C E O F C L A U S E C O F S U B - S E C T I O N ( 1 0 ) O F S E C T I O N 8 0 I B O F INCOME TAX ACT , A L L O T H E R P R E S C R I B E D C O N D I T I O N S F O R A V A I L I N G T H E E X E M P T I O N UNDER SEC. 8 0 I B ( 1 0 ) W E R E D U L Y C O M P L I E D W I T H . T HEREFORE , T H E R E W A S N O Q U E S T I O N O F D I S A L L O W I N G T H E C L A I M F O R D E D U C T I O N T O T H E ASSESSEE UNDER SEC. 8 0 I B ( 1 0 ) . 1 5 . A F T E R C O N S I D E R I N G T H E S U B M I S S I O N S O F T H E DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE A N D P E R U S I N G T H E M A T E R I A L S A V A I L A B L E O N RECORD , W E F I N D T H A T I N T H E ASSESSMENT Y E A R S U N D E R C O N S I D E R A T I O N , T H E ASSESSING OFFICER H A S D E N I E D D E D U C T I O N UNDER SEC. 8 0 I B ( 1 0 ) T O T H E ASSESSEE O N T H E G R O U N D T H A T S O M E O F T H E U N I T S C O N S T R U C T E D I N T H E H O U S I N G P R O J E C T S W E R E O F 2 0 0 0 S Q . F T . A N D T H A T S E C . 8 0 I B ( 1 0 ) P R O V I D E S F O R CONSTRUCTION O F U N I T S O F 1 5 0 0 S Q . F T . O N L Y A N D , THEREFORE , T H E ASSESSEE W A S N O T E L I G I B L E F O R D E D U C T I O N UNDER SEC. 8 0 I B ( 1 0 ) . W E F I N D T H A T COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) H A S H E L D A S U N D E R : - 6. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. THE A.O. DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION MADE U/S.80 IB(10) BY THE ASSESSEE, MAINLY FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: I) SOME OF THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS, WHICH WERE ADJACENT TO EACH OTHER, WERE SOLD TO THE SAME PERSON OR FAMILY. II) THESE UNITS WERE COMBINED TO MAKE ONE SINGLE UNIT, WHOSE COMBINED AREA WAS MORE THAN THE MAXIMUM AREA ALLOWED FOR O NE UNIT TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR CL AIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80 IB(10) . III) THE ASSESSEE PROMOTER, HIMSELF PROVIDED FACILITIES FOR CONVERTING TWO UNITS INTO ONE UNIT AT THE CONSTRUCTION STAGE, ITSELF. 5 ITA NO S . 19 - 23 & 62 - 65/PNJ/2015 IV) THUS, ALL THE CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED FOR AVAILING DEDUCTION U/S.80 IB(L0) WERE NOT FULFILLED . V) FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S.80 IB(10), ALL THE CONDITIONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE MET SIMULTANEOUSLY. IN ITS SUBMISSION, THE APPELLANT HAS MAINLY STRESSED ON THE FOLLOWING ASPECT. I) THAT IT HAS COMPLIED WITH ALL THE PROVISIONS PROVIDED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U /S.80 IB(10). II) IN THE APPROVED PLAN ALL THE UNITS WERE LESS THAN 1500 SQ. FEET EACH . III) IT HAS SOLD ALL THE UNITS SEPARATELY AND THERE ARE SEPARATE AGREEMENTS FOR ALL THE UNITS. IV) THERE WAS NO RESTRICTION ON SELLING TWO ADJACENT UNITS TO THE MEMBERS OF SAME FAMILY TILL 01.04.2010. V) THE DECISION TO CONVERT TWO UNITS INTO ONE IS THAT OF THE BUYER AND THE PROMOTER HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS DECISION. AS FAR AS FACTS ARE CONCERNED, THERE ARE NO TWO DIFFERENT OPINIONS. BOTH THE A.O. AND THE APPELLANT HA VE PLACED RELIANCE ON MANY JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS RELIED UPON, BOTH BY THE A.O. AND THE APPELLANT. THE STATUTE BROUGHT ABOUT A. CHANGE IN THE CONDITIONS FOR AVAILING 80 IB(10) BENEFIT W.E.F. 01.04.2010, I.E. TWO ADJACENT UNITS CAN NOT BE SOLD TO THE MEMBERS OF SAME FAMILY, SO T H A T TWO SEPARATE UNITS COULD BE CONVERTED INTO ONE LARGER UNIT. BUT THIS ALSO MEANS THAT THIS CONDITION WAS NOT MANDATORY UPTO 01.04.2010 AND AS A MATTER OF FACT, THESE PROJECTS CA M E INTO EXISTENCE PRIOR TO 01.04.20 10. HOWEVER, WHILE DECIDING ON THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION, IT IS WORTHWHILE TO ANALYSE THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO DOUBT ABOUT THE FACT THAT AT THE STAGE OF THE APPROVAL OF PLAN, EACH UNIT WAS SMALLER THAN THE MAXIMUM AREA AS ENVISAGED IN THE CONDITIONS FOR AVAILING BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION U/S.80 IB(10). HOWEVER, THIS IS ALSO A FACT THAT AT THE TIME OF SALE, MANY UNITS WERE SOLD TO THE MEMBERS OF SAME FAMILY AND TWO SMALLER ADJACENT UNITS WERE MER GED TO MAKE ONE LARGER UNIT. THIS MERGING WAS DONE AT THE REQUEST OF THE BUYERS, AT THE CONSTRUCTION STAGE ITSELF BY NONE OTHER THAN THE PROMOTER HIMSELF. FACTS OF THIS CASE ARE SIMILAR TO THAT OF M/S. MIRAJ ENTERPRISES. IN THIS CASE, THE A.O. DISALLOWED T HE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80 IB(10) ON THE GROUND THAT MANY UNITS WERE LARGER THAN THE PRESCRIBED 6 ITA NO S . 19 - 23 & 62 - 65/PNJ/2015 AREA U/S.80 IB(10). THE CIT (A), IN HIS ORDER DIRECTED THE A.O. TO ALLOW DEDUCTION, BECAUSE THE ALTERATIONS WERE MADE AFTER THE FLATS WERE SOLD, WHICH WAS BEY OND THE CONTROL OF THE PROMOTER. THE ITAT CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) AND HONOURABLE HIGH COURT DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE, SAYING THAT NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISE. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS IN THE ABOVE MENTIONED CASE AND THE I NSTANT CASE IS THAT, IN THIS CASE, ALTERATIONS WERE MADE BY THE PROMOTER DURING THE CONSTRUCTION STAGE ITSELF, ALBEIT AT THE REQUEST OF THE BUYER. THEREFORE, IN THE INSTANT CASE, IT CAN NOT BE SAID THAT ALTERATIONS WERE BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE PROMOTER, WHICH IS ALSO CLEAR FROM THE STATEMENTS RECORDED BY THE A.O. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT, THAT ENTIRE CLAIM U/S.80 IB(10) BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE IS HEREBY REJECTED. HOWEVER, THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE PLAN FOR THE H OUSING COMPLEX DID NOT CONTAIN ANY UNIT WHICH VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF S.80 IB(10), ALL THE INDIVIDUAL UNITS WERE SOLD SEPARATELY, THERE WAS NO PRE - CONDITION THAT ADJACENT UNITS CAN NOT BE SOLD TO THE MEMBERS OF SAME FAMILY AND THE ALTERATIONS WERE MADE ONLY AFTER THE AGREEMENT TO SALE WAS ENTERED INTO, AT THE REQUEST OF THE BUYER. THEREFORE, IT CAN NOT BE CONCLUDED THAT INTENTION OF THE BUILDER WAS T O VIOLATE ANY CONDITIONS OF S.80 IB(10). IN THIS RESPECT, I RELY ON THE DECISION OF HON. MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. VISHWAS PROMOTERS PVT. LTD. VS ACIT IN T.C. (APPEAL) NO. 1014 OF 2009, WHEREIN THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL TO THAT OF INSTANT CASE. IN THIS CASE, HON. MADRAS HIGH COURT DECIDED AS UNDER: 6.1. ON THE FACTS ADMITTED BY THE REVENUE, IN THE PROJ ECTS AGRINI AND VAJRA, THERE ARE NUMBERS OF FLATS WHICH ARE BELOW 1500 SQ.FT., AND THE RELEVANT BUILT - UP AREA REQUIREMENT IS SPECIFIED UNDER SECTION 80 IB(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 CLAIMED ANY DEDUCTION ON THIS. WE HOLD THAT THE TRIBUNAL IS NOT CORRECT IN ITS VIEW, THAT BY REASON OF THESE UNITS BEING IN EXCESS OF 1500 SQ.F T., THE ENTIRE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THESE TWO PROJECTS WOULD STAND REJECTED UNDER SECTION 80 IB(10) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THUS, GOING BY THE DEFINITION OF HOUSING PROJECT UNDER EXPLANATION TO SECTION 8OHHBA OF THE ACT AS REFERRED TO ABOVE AS THE CONSTRUCTION OF ANY BUILDING AND THE WORDINGS IN SECTION 801B(10) OF THE ACT, THE QUESTION OF REJECTION IN ENTIRELY 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 80 IB(10)(C) OF THE 7 ITA NO S . 19 - 23 & 62 - 65/PNJ/2015 ACT, WE HAVE ALREADY UPHELD THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IN T.C. NOS.1348 AND 1349 OF 2007 DATED 10.10.2012 FOR GRANT OF RELIEF UNDER SECTION 80 IB(10) OF THE ACT ON A PROPORTIONATE 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 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 PRINCIPLE OF PROPORTIONALITY AS WELL AS BY REASON OF THE CONSTRUCTION ON THE MEANING OF THE EXPRESSION HOUSING PROJECT AS REFERRING TO CONSTRUCTION OF ANY BUILDING AND THE WOR DINGS IN SECTION 80 IB(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 F O R THE ENTIRE PROJECTS. CONSEQUEN TLY, IN RESPECT OF EACH OF THE BLOCKS, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO HAVE THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS SATISFYING THE REQUIREMENT UNDER SECTION 80 IB(10)(C) OF THE ACT. IN SO HOLDING, WE ALSO AGREE WITH THE DECISION OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT REPORTED IN [20121 206 TAXMAN 584 (CIT V. VANDANA PROPERTIES), WHICH WAS DECIDED BY THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT ON SIMILAR LINES AS IN THE ASSESSEES CASE BEFORE US. 6.2. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE REASONING, WE HAVE NO HESITATION IN ALLOWING THE CASES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004 - 05, 2005 - 06, 2006 - 07, 2007 - 08 AND 2008 - 09, THEREBY ANSWERING THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF ALL TH E BLOCKS FORMING PART OF THE PROJECTS CALLED AGRINI AND VAJRA, BUT TO THE EXTENT OF EACH OF THE BLOCKS SATISFYING THE CONDITIONS UNDER SECTION 80 IB(10) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO THE RELIEF ON A PROPORTIONATE BASIS. THUS, IT IS CLEAR T HAT THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL IN THE INSTANT CASE TO THAT OF DISCUSSED ABOVE. RELYING ON THE ABOVE QUOTED DECISION, THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW DEDUCTION U/S.80 IB(10) TO THE APPELLANT ON PROPORTIONATE BASIS. THIS SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT I S HEREBY ALLOWED. 7. IT IS SEEN THAT THE A.O. HAS DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80 IB(10) ON IDENTICAL BASIS FOR A.YR. 2007 - 08, 2009 - 10, 20 10 - 11 AND 2011 - 12. SINCE THE FACTS AND LEGAL POSITIONS ARE THE SAME, THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW DEDUCTIO N ON PROPORTIONATE BASIS IN THESE YEARS ALSO. 8. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED WORKING OF PROPORTIONATE ALLOWANCE U/S.80 IB(10) FOR ALL THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT YEARS, WHICH IS ATTACHED TO THIS APPELLATE ORDER. THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO VERIFY THE CORRECTNESS O F THE S AME, WHILE GIVING APPEAL EFFECT. 8 ITA NO S . 19 - 23 & 62 - 65/PNJ/2015 1 6 . W E F I N D T H A T T H E COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) H A S F O L L O W E D T H E D E C I S I O N O F T H E HONBLE M A D R A S HIGH COURT I N T H E C A S E O F M/S. V I S H W A S P R O M O T E R S P V T . LTD . (SUPRA) W H I L E A L L O W I N G P R O P O R T I O N A T E D E D U C T I O N UNDER SEC. 8 0 I B ( 1 0 ) T O T H E ASSESSEE O N T H E H O U S I N G P R O J E C T S . T H E DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE H A S S I M P L Y R E L I E D O N T H E O R D E R O F T H E ASSESSING OFFICER A N D C O U L D N O T C I T E A N Y C O N T R A R Y D E C I S I O N W H I C H W A S I N F A V O U R O F T H E R E V E N U E . T H E AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE A L S O C O U L D N O T C I T E A N Y D E C I S I O N O F T H E HIGH COURT / SUPREME COURT W H I C H W A S I N F A V O U R O F T H E ASSESSEE F O R A L L O W I N G D E D U C T I O N O N E N T I R E INCOME UNDER SEC. 8 0 I B ( 1 0 ) E V E N I N C A S E W H E R E T H E U N I T S C O N S T R U C T E D W E R E O F M O R E T H A N 1 5 0 0 S Q . F T . T HEREFORE , W E F I N D N O G O O D R E A S O N T O INTERFERE W I T H T H E O R D E R O F T H E COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) W H I C H I S H E R E B Y C O N F I R M E D A N D T H E G R O U N D O F A P P E A L O F T H E ASSESSEE AS WELL AS T H A T O F T H E R E V E N U E A R E D I S M I S S E D . 1 7 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL S OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS R E V E N U E A R E DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT AT THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON TUESDAY , THE 1 4 TH DAY OF JULY , 201 5 AT GOA . S D / - S D / - (GEORGE MATHAN) (N.S.SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 14 TH JU LY , 201 5 . VR/ - COPY TO: 1 . THE ASSESSEE. 2 . THE REVENUE. 3 . THE CIT 4 . THE CIT(A) 5 . THE D.R 6 . GUARD FILE. BY ORDER 9 ITA NO S . 19 - 23 & 62 - 65/PNJ/2015 DATE INITIAL ORIGINAL DICTATION PAD IS ENCLOSED IN THE FILE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 1 4 .0 7 .2015 SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 15 .07 .2015 SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 15 /07 /2015 JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER 15 /0 7 /2015 JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 15 /07 /2015 SR.PS 6. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 14 /0 7 /2015 SR.PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 15 /07 /2015 SR.PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER