OM TRINETRI BUILDERS & CONTRACTORS, MUMBAI V. ITO WD 20(2)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 7147/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 62335 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-05-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 25-04-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 18-10-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V SAXENA
• Section: 133A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH C, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI N.V.VASUDEVAN(J.M) & SHRI.RAJENDRA (A. M.) ITA NO. 7147/MUM/2010(A.Y.2006-07) ITA NO.7148/MUM/2010(A.Y.2007-08) M/S. OM TRINETRI BUILDERS & CONTRACTORS, 7/14, UNITED CHS LTD., KOLDONGRI, ANDHERI (E), MUMBAI - 400 069. PAN:AAAFO 3066E (APPELLANT) VS. THE ITO, WARD 20(2)(3), MUMBAI. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAKESH JOSHI RESPONDENT BY : SHRI V. SAXENA DATE OF HEARING : 25/04/2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 0 2/05/2012 ORDER PER N.V.VASUDEVAN, J.M ITA NO.7147/M/2010 IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20/8/2010 OF CIT(A)-31, MUMBAI RELATING TO T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. ITA NO.7148/M/2010 IS ALSO AN APPEAL BY T HE ASSESSEE AGAINST ORDER DATED 20/8/2010 OF CIT(A) RELATING TO THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN BOTH THE APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.71 47/M/2010 READ AS UNDER:- 1) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WE LT AS IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN PASSING THE ORDER WITHO UT GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT BY REJECTING THE ADJO URNMENT SEEKED, REASONS ASSIGNED BY HIM FOR DOING THE SAME ARE WRON G AND INSUFFICIENT. ITA NO. 7147/MUM/2010(A.Y.2006-07) ITA NO.7148/MUM/2010(A.Y.2007-08) 2 2) ON THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF A.O. IN REJECTING THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S.8018(1O) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 OF RS. ./- 3) ON THE FACTS A CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELT AS IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE APPEL LANT HAS FAILED TO SATISFY THE VARIOUS CONDITIONS LAID DOWN FOR CLAIMI NG THE DEDUCTION U/S.801B(1O) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. 4) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER OR DELETE THE SAID GROUND OF APPEAL. ITA NO.7147/M/2010 (A.Y. 2006-07): 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM. IT IS ENGAG ED IN THE BUSINESS OF BUILDER AND CONTRACTOR. THE ASSESSEE WAS DEVELOPIN G A PROJECT IN AN AREA ADMEASURING 1459.7 SQ.MTS. AND FORMING PART OF LAND S BEARING SURVEY NO.45, HISSA NO.9 (PART) AND CTS NO.230, 230/1 TO 2 9 AND SURVEY NO.45, HISSA NO.10, C.S.NO.247, 247/1 TO 12 OF VILLAGE VIL E PARLE (EAST) TALUKA ANDHERI, MUMBAI AND ANOTHER AREA MEASURING 595 SQ. MTS. FORMING PART OF LANDS BEARING SURVEY NO.45, HISS NO.2 (PART) AND 9 (PART) AND CTS NO.229 (PART) AND 231 OF VILLAGE VILE PARLE (EAST), ANDHER I, MUMBAI. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE HOUSING PROJECT CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE AFORESAID PROPERTIES WAS A SINGLE PROJECT AND WAS BEING DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH A SCHEME FRAMED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT FOR RECONSTRU CTION OR REDEVELOPMENT OF EXISTING BUILDING IN AREAS DECLARED TO BE SLUM A REA UNDER THE LAW FOR THE TIME BEINGS IN FORCE. THE PROJECT HAD THE APPROVAL OF SLUM REHABILITATION AUTHORITY (SRA), GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA. THE ASS ESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 IB(10) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961(THE ACT) IN RESPECT OF THE PROFITS DERIVED FROM DEVELOPMENT OF THE AFORESAID PROJECT. THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.80-IB(10) OF THE ACT AS APPLICABL E FROM AY 05-06 IS AS FOLLOWS: ITA NO. 7147/MUM/2010(A.Y.2006-07) ITA NO.7148/MUM/2010(A.Y.2007-08) 3 (10) THE AMOUNT OF DEDUCTION IN THE CASE OF AN UND ERTAKING DEVELOPING AND BUILDING HOUSING PROJECTS APPROVED B Y A LOCAL AUTHORITY SHALL BE HUNDRED PER CENT OF THE PROFITS DERIVED IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR FROM SUCH HOUSING P ROJECT IF, (A) SUCH UNDERTAKING HAS COMMENCED OR COMMENCES DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSING PROJECT ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 1998 AND COMPLETES SUCH CON STRUCTION (I) IN A CASE WHERE A HOUSING PROJECT HAS BEEN APPR OVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY BEFORE THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 20 04, 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, WITHIN FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCI AL YEAR IN WHICH THE HOUSING PROJECT 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 HO USING PROJECT SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN APPROVED ON TH E 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 WH ICH THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF SUCH HOUSING P ROJECT IS ISSUED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY; PROVIDED THAT NOTHING CONTAINED IN CLAUSE (A) OR CLAUSE (B) SHALL APPLY TO A HOUSING PROJECT CARRIED OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH A SCHEME FRAMED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OR A STATE GOVERNMENT FOR RECONSTRUCTION OR REDEVELOPMENT OF EXISTING BUILDINGS IN AREAS DECLARED TO BE SLUM AREAS UNDER ANY LAW FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE AND SUCH SCHEME IS NOTIFIED BY THE BOARD IN THIS BEHALF; (B) THE PROJECT IS ON THE SIZE OF A PLOT OF LAND W HICH HAS A MINIMUM AREA OF ONE ACRE: (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 CITI ES AND ONE THOUSAND AND FIVE HUNDRED SQUARE 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 ITA NO. 7147/MUM/2010(A.Y.2006-07) ITA NO.7148/MUM/2010(A.Y.2007-08) 4 FIVE PER CENT OF THE AGGREGATE BUILT-UP AREA OF THE HOUSING PROJECT OR TWO THOUSAND SQUARE FEET, WHICHEVER IS LESS. 3. THE AO DENIED THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80-IB (10) OF THE ACT, FOR NON- FULFILLMENT OF TWO CONDITIONS. (1) AS WE HAVE ALREADY SEEN WHAT THE ASSESSEE WAS DE VELOPING WAS A SLUM REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT DULY APPROVED BY SRA. A S PER THE PROVISO TO SEC.80-IB(10)(A) OF THE ACT, A HOUSING P ROJECT CARRIED OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH A SCHEME FRAMED BY THE CENTRAL GOVE RNMENT OR A STATE GOVERNMENT FOR RECONSTRUCTION OR REDEVELOPMEN T OF EXISTING BUILDINGS IN AREAS DECLARED TO BE SLUM AREAS UNDER ANY LAW FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE NEED NOT SATISFY THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN SEC.80-IB(10)(A) OF THE ACT BUT SUCH SCHEME SHOULD BE NOTIFIED BY THE BOARD (CBDT) IN THIS BEHALF. ADMITTEDLY THERE IS N O CBDT NOTIFICATION IN RESPECT OF THE PROJECT DEVELOPED BY THE ASSESSEE. (2) THE RESIDENTIAL UNIT CONSTRUCTED IN THE PROJECT S HOULD HAVE A MAXIMUM BUILT-UP AREA OF ONE THOUSAND SQUARE FEET W HERE SUCH RESIDENTIAL UNIT IS SITUATED WITHIN THE CITY OF DEL HI OR MUMBAI OR WITHIN TWENTY-FIVE KILOMETERS FROM THE MUNICIPAL LI MITS OF THESE CITIES AND ONE THOUSAND AND FIVE HUNDRED SQUARE FEET AT AN Y OTHER PLACE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS. THE CASE OF THE REVENUE ON THE FULFILLMENT OF THE S ECOND CONDITION IS THAT ON 30/9/2008 A SURVEY UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE ACT WA S CARRIED OUT IN THE PLACE WHERE THE PROJECT WERE CONSTRUCTED BY THE ASS ESSEE IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY IT TURNED OUT THAT THE FOLLOWING FLATS WHICH WERE SOLD UNDER ONE AGREEMENT TO ONE PERSON HAD TOTAL AREA AS PER THE AGREEMENT WHICH WAS MUCH MORE THAN THOUSAND SQ.FT. FLATS I.E. B-101 AND 102 (MR. VIJAY CHOUDHARY) A-401 AND 402 (SMT. ARCHANA SANKHE). FUR THER, IT WAS ALSO ITA NO. 7147/MUM/2010(A.Y.2006-07) ITA NO.7148/MUM/2010(A.Y.2007-08) 5 ADMITTED THAT IN CASE OF CERTAIN FLATS AS BELOW THE RE WAS SINGLE AGREEMENT AND IT HAS BEEN SOLD TO JOINT OWNERS: S.NO. FLAT NO. NAME OF THE OWNER COMBINED AREA OF FLAT SQ.FT. (CARPET AREA) BUILT UP AREA OF THE FLAT SQ.FT. 1. B-201&B202 MR.KISHORE GADA 880.60 1235 2. A301 & A302 MRS. KAMAL J SANKHE 875.11 1235 3. A303 & A304 MR. DAMJI N NISHAR 1075.81 1506.29 4. B301 & B302 MR. LAXMIBEN NISHAR 880.60 1235 5. A 401 & A 402 MRS. DIMPAL K. CHHADVA 880.60 1235 6. A 501 & A 502 MR. PURSHOTTAM K. SANKHE 875.11 1235 7. B 501 & B 502 MRS. MANA COLACO 880.60 1235 8. A 601 & A 602 MRS. KALPANA K. SANKHE 875.11 123 5 9. B 601 & B 602 MR. VIPIN J SANKHE 880.60 1235 10. A 701 & A 702 MR. NARAYAN J. SANKHE 875.11 123 5 11 B 701 & B 702 MR. DEEPAK S NAIK 880.60 1235 12 A 101 & A 102 MR. RAIKAR 875.11 1235 SINCE ONE OF THE CONDITION FOR ELIGIBILITY OF DEDUC TION UNDER SECTION 80 IB (10) OF THE ACT WAS THAT THE AREA OF FLAT DEVELOPED SHO ULD NOT BE MORE THAN 1000 SQ.FT. AND SINCE TWO ADJACENT FLATS HAVE BEEN COMBI NED TO ONE FLAT AND SOLD TO ONE PERSON A SINGLE AGREEMENT, THE AO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 IB(10) O F THE ACT. SINCE THE SCHEME WAS NOT NOTIFIED Y THE CBDT THE AO DENIED TH E CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 IB(10) OF THE ACT. 4. ON APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF AO, GIVING RISE TO THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUN AL. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. AS FAR AS APPROVAL OF THE SLUM REHABILITATION AUTHORITY IS CONCERNED WE FIND THAT CBDT HAS ISSUED A NOTIFICATION DATED 3/8/10, WHEREBY IT IS NOW NOTIFI ED THAT ANY SCHEME APPROVED UNDER REGULATION 33(10) OF DCR FOR GREATER MUMBAI 1991, AND BY THE SRE FOR SLUM REHABILITATION WOULD BE VALID FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLAUSE- A AND B OF SECTION 80 IB (10) OF THE ACT. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IT WOULD BE ITA NO. 7147/MUM/2010(A.Y.2006-07) ITA NO.7148/MUM/2010(A.Y.2007-08) 6 APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND RESTORE THE SAME TO THE AO FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUE AFRE SH IN THE LIGHT OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE CBDT. 6. AS FAR AS THE INDIVIDUAL FLATS EXCEEDING THE B UILT UP AREA OF MORE THAN 1000 SQ. FT. IS CONCERNED WE FIND THAT THE CO-ORDI NATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF EMGEE HOLDING PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT, (2 011) 12 TAXMAN.COM 468 (MUM) HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS: IT WAS NOTED THAT THE SIZE OF EACH FIAT, AS EVID ENT FROM BUILDING PLAN AS DULY APPROVED BY MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES, WAS LESS THAN 1,000 SQ. FT. IT WAS NOT EVEN REVENUES CASE THAT EACH OF FLAT ON STAND ALONE BASIS WAS NOT A RESIDENTIAL UNIT. EVEN FLATS WERE CONSTRU CTED OR PLANNED IN SUCH A WAY THAT TWO FLATS COULD INDEED BE MERGED IN TO ONE LARGER UNIT, AS LONG EACH FLAT WAS AN INDEPENDENT RESIDENTIAL UN IT, DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-LB (10) COULD NOT BE DECLINED. WHAT SECT ION 80-LB (10) REFERS TO IS RESIDENTIAL UNIT AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANYT HING TO THE CONTRARY IN THE ACT, THE EXPRESSION RESIDENTIAL UNITS MUST HA VE THE SAME CONNOTATIONS AS ASSIGNED TO IT BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES GRANTING APPROVAL TO THE PROJECT. THE LOCAL AUTHORITY HAD APPROVED THE B UILDING PLAN WITH RESIDENTIAL UNITS OF LESS THAN 1,000 SQ.FI. AND GRA NTED COMPLETION CERTIFICATE AS SUCH. THERE WAS NO AMBIGUITY ABOUT T HE FACTUAL POSITION. FURTHER, THE PROHIBITION AGAINST SALE OF MORE THAN ONE FLAT IN A HOUSING PROJECT TO MEMBERS OF A FAMILY HAS BEEN INSERTED SP ECIFICALLY WITH EFFECT FROM 1-4-2010 AND, SAID AMENDMENT IN LAW CAN ONLY BE TREATED AS PROSPECTIVE IN EFFECT. SO FAR AS PRE-AMENDMENT P OSITION IS CONCERNED, AS LONG AS RESIDENTIAL UNIT HAS LESS T HAN SPECIFIED AREA, IS AS PER THE DULY APPROVED PLANS AND IS CAPABLE OF BE ING USED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES ON STAND ALONE BASIS, DEDUCTIO N UNDER SECTION 80-IB(10) CANNOT BE DECLINED IN RESPECT OF THE SAME MERELY BECAUSE THE END USER, BY BUYING MORE THAN ONE SUCH UNIT IN THE NAME OF FAMILY MEMBERS, HAS MERGED THESE RESIDENTIAL UNITS INTO A LARGER RESIDENTIAL UNIT OF A SIZE WHICH IS IN EXCESS OF SP ECIFIED SIZE. IT IS USEFUL TO TAKE NOTE OF LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENT BY VIR TUE OF WHICH THE LEGISLATURE PUT CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS ON SALE OF RES IDENTIAL UNITS TO CERTAIN FAMILY MEMBERS OF A PERSON WHO HAS BEEN SOL D A RESIDENTIAL UNIT IN THE HOUSING PROJECT. SECTION 80-IB(10) NOW PROVIDES AN ADDITIONAL ELIGIBILITY CONDITION THAT IN A CASE WHE RE A RESIDENTIAL UNIT IN THE HOUSING PROJECT IS ALLOTTED TO ANY PERSON BEING AN INDIVIDUAL, NO OTHER RESIDENTIAL UNIT IN SUCH HOUSING PROJECT IS A LLOTTED TO ANY OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON, NAMELY (1) THE INDIVIDUAL OR THE SPOUSE, OR THE MINOR CHILDREN OF SUCH INDIVIDUAL, (II) THE HUF IN WHICH SUCH INDIVIDUAL, IS A KARTA (III) ANY PERSON REPRESENTING SUCH INDIVIDUA L THE SPOUSE OR ITA NO. 7147/MUM/2010(A.Y.2006-07) ITA NO.7148/MUM/2010(A.Y.2007-08) 7 MINOR CHILDREN OF SUCH INDIVIDUAL, OR THE HUF IN WH ICH SUCH INDIVIDUAL IS A KARTA. [PARA 7] IT IS CLEAR THAT THE AMENDMENT HAS BEEN BROUGHT WIT H PROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 1-4-2010, AND THERE IS NO INDICATION WH ATSOEVER TO SUGGEST THAT THESE RESTRICTIONS NEED TO BE APPLIED WITH RET ROSPECTIVE EFFECT. THE AMENDMENT SEEKS TO PLUG A LOOPHOLE BUT RESTRICTS TH E REMEDY WITH EFFECT FROM 1-4-2010, I.E., ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 . THE LAW IS VERY CLEAR THAT UNLESS PROVIDED IN THE STATUTE, THE LAW IS ALWAYS PRESUMED TO BE PROSPECTIVE IN NATURE. IT WILL, THEREFORE, BE CONTRARY OF THE SCHEME OF LAW TO PROCEED ON THE BASIS THAT WHEREVER ADJACE NT RESIDENTIAL UNITS ARE SOLD TO FAMILY MEMBERS, ALL THESE RESIDENTIAL U NITS ARE TO BE CONSIDERED AS ONE UNIT. IF LAW PERMITTED SO, THERE WAS NO NEED OF THE INSERTION OF CLAUSE (F) TO SECTION UNDER SECTION 80 -LB (1 0) IT WILL BE UNREASONABLE TO PROCEED ON THE BASIS THAT LEGISLATI VE AMENDMENT WAS INFRUCTUOUS OR UNCALLED FOR - PARTICULARLY AS THE A MENDMENT IS NOT EVEN STATED TO BE FOR REMOVAL OF DOUBTS: ON THE CO NTRARY, THIS AMENDMENT SHOWS THAT NO SUCH ELIGIBILITY CONDITIONS COULD BE READ INTO PRE-AMENDMENT LEGAL POSITION. [PARA 8] IN VIEW OF AFORESAID DISCUSSION, THE DEDUCTION UNDE R SECTION 80-LB(10) WAS TO BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE ENTIRELY. [PARA 9 ) 7. IN THE PRESENT CASE ADMITTEDLY THE AMENDED PROV ISIONS OF LAW WILL NOT APPLY AND, THEREFORE, SO LONG AS PER THE PLANS APPR OVED BY THE CONCERNED AUTHORITIES, THE BUILT UP AREA OF EACH FLAT IS LESS THAN 1000 SQ.FT. THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT TWO FLATS AS PER APPROV ED PLAN LYING ADJACENT TO EACH OTHER HAVE BEEN COMBINED INTO ONE FLAT AND OWN ED BY ONE OWNER OR JOINTLY WITH SOME OF THE MEMBERS OF HIS FAMILY. IN THIS REGARD WE ALSO FIND FROM THE APPROVED PLAN COPY OF WHICH IS AT PAGE 66 OF THE PAPER BOOK THAT AS PER THE APPROVAL THE BUILT UP AREA OF EACH FLAT IS LESS THAN 1000 SQ.FT. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES WE HOLD THAT THE REJECTION OF THE CLA IM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 IB(10) ON THIS ACCOUNT C ANNOT BE SUSTAINED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS PAR TLY ALLOWED. ITA NO. 7147/MUM/2010(A.Y.2006-07) ITA NO.7148/MUM/2010(A.Y.2007-08) 8 ITA NO.7148/M/10,A.Y 2007-08: 9. THE PARTIES AGREED THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTAN CES IN THIS ASSESSMENT ARE IDENTICAL TO THAT OF A.Y 2006-07. T HE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 IB(10) OF THE ACT IN THIS ASSESSMENT YEA R HAS TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE SAME BASIS ON WHICH WE HAVE DECIDED THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO FOL LOW THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN IN A.Y 2006-06 IN THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR ALSO. IN AL L OTHER RESPECT THE DECISION GIVEN IN A.Y 2006-07 WILL APPLY TO THIS AS SESSMENT YEAR ALSO. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS THUS PARTLY ALLOWED. 10. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSE E ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 2 ND DAY OF MAY 2012 SD/- SD/- (RAJENDRA) (N.V.VASUDEVAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 2 ND MAY 2012 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CITY CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A)- CONCERNED 5. THE D.RC BENCH. (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, I TAT, MUMBAI BENCHES MUMBAI. VM.