Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

17. After going through the above submissions and material on record, we find that the assessee has disallowed the claim of the assessee on three accounts viz., the project Kumar Kruti is part of larger project named Kumar City project, assessee should have completed the project by 31.03.2008. Further, the commercial area in Kumar City project is more than limits prescribed, the said condition has also been violated and lastly built up area of eight flats exceed 1500 sq.ft., which is also violation of conditions prescribed u/s.80IB(10). As discussed above, following the reasoning in project Kumar Shantiniketan, we have allowed deduction on prorata basis with regard to completed eligible flats vide para 9 of this order. Accordingly Assessing Officer is directed to rework deduction of claim u/s.80IB(10) on eligible flats after excluding eight flats whose area exceed prescribed limit of area.

"1. M/s Aditya Developers purchased a plot of land bearing Survey No. 1/A(Part) of Kondhwa Khurd, Pune from Ranade and their relatives. Thereafter M/s. Aditya Developers got the clearance from Urban and Land Ceiling Department vide order dated 17-8-1988. Then we got layout plans sanctioned from the PMC vide order dated 25-5-1990. As per the terms of the ULC we have to show 25 s1.mtr corehouse plots and building in layout plan and get it sanctioned from PMC. If we don't implement their order ad show the vacant land in the plan, the ULC department might have initiated acquisition procedure. The total land area was 28905 sq.mtr. It was not possible for us to start construction and development of entire land. So we started development and construction of front area of land. In the year 1994, we have requested govt. of Maharashtra to accept the consideration in lieu of certain conditions stipulated in their order for deleting construction of corehouse plots & small area flats. After a long hearings they accepted our request and on payment made, issued us order on 14-12-1994 because of which we were entitled to cancel the certain building and 112 core houses of 25 Sq.M. proposed for weaker section. We got our land reverted back from ULC Dept. on payment of consideration to Govt. by order on 14-12-1994.

(b) Without prejudice to the above ground, assuming without admitting that the condition of built up area is not satisfied for few flats, i.e. the built up area of few flats exceeded 1500 sq.ft, the appellant submits that the deduction u/s 80IB (10) should have been allowed on proportionate basis in respect of the balance flats whose built up area was less than 1500 sq.ft.

2 (a) The learned CIT (A) erred in disallowing the deduction u/s 80IB(10) of Rs.4,17,74,015 /- claimed in respect of the project Kumar Shantiniketan on the ground that the said project did not satisfy the conditions laid down u/s 80IB(10).

The AO and CIT(A) may please be directed to allow the deduction claimed u/s 80IB(10) of Rs.4,17,74,015/- for Project Kumar Shantiniketan.

(b) Without prejudice to the above ground, assuming without admitting that the condition of built up area is not satisfied for few flats, i.e. the built up area of few flats exceeded 1500 sq.ft, the appellant submits that the deduction u/s 80IB (10) should have been allowed on proportionate basis in respect of the balance flats whose built up area was less than 1500 sq.ft.