Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

IT APPEAL NO. 1253 (MUM.) OF 2007

Advocates

Sashi Tulsiyan

Judges

R.S. PADVEKARR.K. PANDA

Acts

section 80-IB(10) of Income-tax Act, 1961."The
clause (b) to section 80-IB(10) and(3)The
section 80-IB(10) of the Income-tax Act
SECTION 80 IB INCOME TAX ACT 1961
'D'.9. Sub-section (10) of section 80-IB
sub-section (10) to section 80-IB
provisions of section 80-IB(10),
clause (c) of section 80-IB(10)
clause (b) to section 80-IB(10),
10(23G) and section 80-IB(10).
Finance Act (No. 2) of 2004
sub-section 80-IB(10)(d)
section 80-IB(10).15.
section 80-IB(10),
section 80-IB.6.
INCOME TAX ACT
section 80-IB

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Judicial Order (R.S. Padvekar, Judicial Member)

Factual and Procedural Background

The assessee is a firm engaged in construction and development of residential buildings. On a plot of 2.36 acres at Dev Nagar, Sai Baba Road, Kandivali (West), Mumbai the assessee constructed five wings/buildings (A, B, C, D and E). The assessee claimed deduction under section 80-IB(10) of the Income-tax Act in respect of profits from Building/Wing "E" (Rs. 71,73,660). The Assessing Officer (AO) denied the deduction on three main grounds: (a) the project (including Wing E) was said to have commenced before 1-10-1998 as an earlier Commencement Certificate (CC) dated 9-6-1993 was said to cover Wing E as well; (b) if the total land (2.36 acres) was apportioned among the buildings, the land attributable to Wing E would be less than one acre; and (c) two flats in Wing E (Nos. 138 and 153) were allegedly merged on the ground floor and together exceeded the maximum permissible built-up area (1,000 sq.ft.), breaching clause (c) of section 80-IB(10).

The assessee replied explaining that Wing E had a separate plan approval on 11-10-2002 and a separate CC for full work on 10-3-2003, that Wing E was an independent project commenced after 1-10-1998, that the total plot area of 2.36 acres satisfies the one-acre requirement, and that the alleged merger of flats was only temporary/unfinished construction and not evidence of a single large residential unit. The AO rejected the claim; the CIT(A) upheld the AO relying on an ITAT Mumbai decision (Laukik Developer). The assessee appealed further to the Tribunal.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether Building/Wing "E" constitutes an independent "housing project" eligible for deduction under section 80-IB(10) (i.e., whether it should be treated as part of an earlier project commenced before 1-10-1998 or as a separate project commenced after that date).
Whether the requirement of a minimum plot size of one acre in section 80-IB(10)(b) is satisfied for Wing "E" (i.e., whether the total plot area should be considered or whether land must be apportioned so that Wing E has at least one acre).
Whether two flats in Wing "E" (Nos. 138 and 153) were effectively merged so that the residential unit exceeded the maximum built-up area (1,000 sq.ft. for Mumbai), thereby disqualifying the claim under section 80-IB(10)(c).
Whether the disallowance of a revenue deduction of Rs. 1,58,900 (deposits forfeited to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay) was correctly treated as a capital loss by the AO and CIT(A).

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's (Assessee's) Arguments

Wing E is an independent housing project: plan approved on 11-10-2002 and CC for full work granted on 10-3-2003; Wing E was planned and commenced after 1-10-1998 and thus satisfies the commencement-date requirement.
The statute does not require separate demarcation of land for each building; the total plot area is 2.36 acres and that satisfies the one-acre minimum under section 80-IB(10)(b).
The alleged merger of Flats 138 and 153 is unfounded: internal partition work was incomplete at the time of survey, both flats had independent entrances and separate staircase access, both flats were unsold and unoccupied, and no amended plan to merge was ever submitted to the municipal authority.
When survey officers visited the site, the flats were under construction and used for storage (and temporarily kept open for a religious event), which does not establish a permanent merger or sale as a single unit; subsequent construction shows separation according to approved plans.
Assessee relied on tribunal and appellate authority decisions (Saroj Sales Organization; Bengal Ambuja; Brigade Enterprizes) to support the claim that a later-approved project/wing can be treated independently for section 80-IB(10) and that qualifying smaller units in a project containing larger units can obtain deduction for the qualifying units.

Respondent's (Revenue's / Department's) Arguments

Wing E is part of the overall project which commenced in 1993: initial CC was granted on 9-6-1993 and subsequent endorsements for wings amounted to continuation of the earlier project; Explanation 2 to section 80-IB(10) (as inserted with effect from 1-4-2005) treats multiple approvals as deemed approved on the earliest approval date, which defeats the assessee's claim.
If the total plot of 2.36 acres is apportioned among the five buildings, the land attributable to Wing E is less than one acre; therefore, clause (b) is not satisfied for Wing E.
Survey findings and statements of the site supervisor and architect (recorded under section 131) show Flats 138 and 153 were merged and the combined area was about 1,466 sq.ft., exceeding the 1,000 sq.ft. limit under clause (c), thus disqualifying the deduction.
The assessee only erected a partition wall later when it realized the deduction might be disallowed, which undermines the assessee's explanations.
On the deposit forfeiture of Rs. 1,58,900, the AO treated it as capital in nature; this treatment was confirmed by the CIT(A) and should be upheld because the assessee failed to place documentary evidence to substantiate a revenue loss characterization.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Laukik Developer v. Dy. CIT [IT Appeal No. 532 (Mum.) 2006, order dated 12-7-2006]	Relied upon by the CIT(A) to reject the assessee's claim (as recorded by the Tribunal).	The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had relied on this ITAT Mumbai decision to support denial, but the Tribunal ultimately reversed the CIT(A)'s position in the present appeal.
Saroj Sales Organization v. ITO [2008] 115 TTJ 485 (Mum.)	Held that different wings/blocks, with separate approvals and commencements, can be treated as independent housing projects for purposes of section 80-IB(10).	The Tribunal considered this co-ordinate-bench decision relevant and supportive of treating Wing E as an independent project; it relied on the reasoning that separate statutory approvals, timing and project segregation support independence.
Asstt. CIT v. Bengal Ambuja Housing Development Ltd. [IT Appeal Nos. 1595 and 1735 (Kol.) of 2005, order dated 24-3-2006]	Considered in the context that deduction can be allowed for qualifying smaller units even where a housing complex contains larger units; narrow denial of deduction was disapproved.	The Tribunal referenced this decision as persuasive authority for permitting deduction in respect of qualifying units and to counter a restricted interpretation of clause (c) of section 80-IB(10).
Dy. CIT v. Brigade Enterprizes (P.) Ltd. [2009] 28 SOT 7 (Bang.)(URO)	Cited by the assessee as supportive authority (no extended principle set out in the present order).	The decision was listed among authorities relied upon by the assessee; the Tribunal noted the citation but primarily developed its conclusion based on Saroj Sales and Bengal Ambuja reasoning.
Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT [1992] 196 ITR 188 (SC)	Principle that provisions granting deduction should be interpreted liberally (as applied by lower tribunals/courts).	The Tribunal invoked the Supreme Court's principle of liberal interpretation as supportive of accepting the assessee's claim when the statutory conditions for the qualifying project/units are satisfied.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Tribunal undertook a structured analysis focusing on the three principal objections raised by the AO (commencement date, plot size, and unit size) and an ancillary issue concerning forfeited deposits.

1. Interpretation of "Housing Project" and commencement date (issue whether Wing E is part of an earlier project)

The Tribunal noted there is no definition of "housing project" in section 80-IB(10) and looked to the broader wording used in section 80HHBA as internal aid; section 80HHBA's explanation includes "any building," which supports the view that a single building can be a housing project.
The Tribunal examined documentary approvals and CCs: CCs for Wings A and B were originally granted in 1993 with further permissions/ extensions in 1993–1998; for Wing E the building plan approval was in October 2002 and CC for full work for Wing E was finally granted in May 2003 (with a full-work CC dated 20-5-2003 recorded in the record). The permissions granted earlier for A–D did not reference Wing E.
The Tribunal considered Explanation 2 (inserted with effect from 1-4-2005) which deems multiple approvals to be deemed approved on the first approval date; however, the Tribunal found that Wing E's plan was approved only once (2002) and that Explanation 2 did not make Wing E deemed approved earlier. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the AO's contention that Wing E was merely a continuation of the 1993 project.
The Tribunal found the co-ordinate-bench authority in Saroj Sales persuasive: separate commencement certificates, separate timings, separation in statutory approvals and segregation in accounts indicate independent projects rather than a single integrated project for denying relief.
On this basis the Tribunal concluded Wing E was an independent housing project commenced after 1-10-1998 and eligible under the commencement condition of section 80-IB(10).

2. Plot size requirement (clause (b) — minimum one acre)

The Tribunal accepted that the assessee acquired development rights for a plot of 2.36 acres and that no specific demarcation of the 2.36 acres among the various wings was made in the documents.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT had provided administrative clarification (cited in correspondence) permitting additional projects on an existing housing project to qualify for relief where correct profits can be ascertained, particularly in the context of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR). Taking the entire plot area into account, the Tribunal held that the one-acre minimum was satisfied for the Wing E project.
The Tribunal therefore rejected the AO and CIT(A) view that area had to be proportionately allocated resulting in less than one acre for Wing E.

3. Alleged merger of flats and maximum built-up area (clause (c))

The Tribunal reviewed the survey visit evidence and the statements of the site supervisor and architect relied upon by the AO. It noted the AO did not demonstrate that the approved plan itself showed a combined unit exceeding 1,000 sq.ft.
The site supervisor stated the ground-floor flats were kept open temporarily (for a religious event and for storage of construction materials), and the architect stated no amended plan for a merger had been submitted to the municipal authority.
The Tribunal observed that temporary absence of internal partitions during ongoing construction is common practice and that on completion internal walls were constructed consistent with approved plans; there was no sale agreement or other evidence of a permanent merger as of the survey date.
Accordingly, the Tribunal found the AO's conclusion about a permanent merged residential unit exceeding 1,000 sq.ft. unsupported and erroneous.

4. Forfeited deposit of Rs. 1,58,900

The Tribunal noted the AO treated the forfeited deposits (to the Municipal Corporation) as capital in nature and disallowed the assessee's write-off as a revenue loss; the CIT(A) had confirmed this position.
The assessee failed to produce correspondence, receipts or other documentary proof to substantiate that the deposits were revenue in nature or to explain factual matrix to justify revenue treatment.
On the basis of absence of supporting evidence the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s confirmation of the AO's treatment.

Synthesizing the above, the Tribunal concluded Wing E met all fundamental statutory conditions of section 80-IB(10) (commencement after 1-10-1998, project approval timeline, plot size and unit-size condition) and that the AO's factual conclusions on merger and demarcation were not supported by the record.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The appeal is PARTLY ALLOWED.

Core rulings and immediate effects:

The Tribunal held that Building/Wing "E" is an independent housing project for the purposes of section 80-IB(10), having commenced after 1-10-1998 and having been completed within the statutory timeframe; the Tribunal reversed the CIT(A) on this issue and directed the Assessing Officer to grant the deduction under section 80-IB(10) in respect of Wing "E".
The Tribunal held there was no violation of the one-acre plot-size condition when the entire plot of 2.36 acres is taken into account and rejected the AO/CIT(A) approach of proportionately allocating land to deny the qualification.
The Tribunal held that the AO's finding of a merged residential unit (Flats 138 and 153) exceeding 1,000 sq.ft. was baseless on the record; this ground for denial was rejected.
With respect to the forfeited deposits of Rs. 1,58,900, the Tribunal upheld the AO/CIT(A) conclusion disallowing the claimed revenue deduction because the assessee did not substantiate the claim with documents; that part of the assessment was therefore sustained.

Broader implications: The Tribunal applied existing authorities (including co-ordinate-bench decisions such as Saroj Sales Organization and the reasoning in Bengal Ambuja and the principle of liberal interpretation from Bajaj Tempo Ltd.) to conclude that separately approved/commenced wings can qualify as independent housing projects for section 80-IB(10). The order operates to restore the assessee's entitlement to the statutory deduction for Wing E and to confirm the disallowance of the unsubstantiated forfeited deposit. The Tribunal did not purport to lay down a novel legal principle beyond applying and following the cited authorities and statutory interpretation.

Result recorded in the order: assessee's appeal partly allowed; AO directed to allow deduction under section 80-IB(10) for Wing E; forfeited deposit disallowance confirmed.

Show full summary ...

Vandana Properties v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 25(2), Mumbai

ORDER

R.S. Padvekar, Judicial Member. - This appeal by the assessee has been filed challenging the impugned order of the Learned CIT(A)-XXV, Mumbai dated 17-11-2005 for assessment year 2005-06.

2. The first issue is in respect of the disallowance of the deduction under section 80-IB of the Income-tax Act in respect of the housing project of the assessee.

3. The facts in brief are as under :

The assessee-firm is engaged in the business of construction and development of the housing project. The assessee claimed the deduction under section 80-IB(10) of the Act of Rs. 71,73,660 in respect of Building Wing-E which was constructed on a plot at Dev Nagar of Sai Baba Road, Kandivali (West), Mumbai. It was noticed by the Assessing Officer that the area of the plot was of 2.36 Acres on which, the assessee has constructed five Wings of the residential buildings namely A, B, C, D and E. The Commencement Certificate (CC) for the construction on the said plot was granted on 9-6-1993, which was subsequently extended over the years for the entire work of the four Wings namely A, B, C and D till 22-4-1998. The assessee-firm again filed Plan in respect of the Wing 'E' for which CC was further extended. The Assessing Officer has also noted that the plan in respect of 'E' Building was approved on 25-5-2003. The assessee had not claimed any deduction in respect of the profits relating to Wings- A, B, C and D under section 80-IB(10) of the Income-tax Act and claim of the assessee is only in respect of the Building Wing- "E". As noted by the Assessing Officer, assessee was recognizing the revenue on percentage of Work Completed method. The assessee has declared the profit of the Project at Rs. 3.57 crores for the assessment year 2004-05 and Rs. 2.20 crores for the assessment year 2005-06. There was a survey action against the assessee under section 133A of the Act and during the course of the Survey Action, the project site, more particularly Wing/Building "E" was visited and inspected by the Income-tax officials. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer also recorded the statement of the Site Supervisor and Architect. On the basis of inspection of the Building wing-'E', as well as the depositions of the Site Supervisor and Architect, which were recorded by issuing summons under section 131, the Assessing Officer came to the conclusion that the assessee is not eligible for deduction under section 80-IB(10) of the Act as certain conditions were not fulfilled. The Assessing Officer issued the show-cause notice to the assessee on the deduction claimed under section 80-IB(10) of the Act asking why same should not be rejected ? The reasons given for not allowing the deduction to the assessee were based as under :—

(a) The Commencement Certificate (CC) is dated 9-6-1993 and Block 'E's endorsement is on this C.C. only and Block 'E's, continuation of the earlier Blocks or Wings i.e. A, B, C, D and E and hence the assessee has commenced the construction before 1-10-1998.
(b) The size of the Plot of land belonging to the said project is less than one acre. As the total size of the plot of land is 2.36 acre on which the five blocks A, B, C, D and E are constructed, if the land is apportioned to Block 'E', then the size of the land belonging to Block 'E' is less than 1 acre.
(c) During the survey on 11-10-2005, in respect of Block 'E', it was noticed that two flats namely Flat Nos. 138 and 153 have been merged into one flat and size of the said merged flat is more than 1,000 sq. ft. which was supported by the statement of the Supervisor as well as statement of the Architect. Assessee filed the reply to the show-cause notice, which is reproduced by the Assessing Officer and for understanding the controversy better, the same is reproduced hereunder :—

"My client is in receipt of notice dated 30-11-2005 asking to furnish some details, in this regard my submissions are as under :

Regarding claim of deduction under section 80-IB from income earned on construction of Block "E" in fact it is not a Block, but it is a building numbered "E".

(1a) As stated earlier assessee-firm has started construction activity in the earlier years on the basis of project approved and C.C. granted for various buildings numbered A, B, C, D and profit from the same are offered for taxation from assessment year 1995-96 to assessment year 2004-05. I am giving hereunder details regarding building-wise date of project approval corresponding permission to commence construction.

Building Number	Date of I.O.D. (day of approval)	Date of Permission to Commence construction
A, B	12-5-1993	9-6-1993
C	18-12-1993	12-8-1996
D	1-8-1996	12-8-1996
E	11-10-2002	10-3-2003

Assessee-firm would have been eligible for deduction under section 80-IB in respect of income from building A, B, C and D if commencement of construction was after 1-10-1998.

Building numbered "E" project is different project for assessee-firm and its approval is taken on 11-10-2002. The profit of "E" Wing project is worked put separately by your assessee. Expenses of "E" wing project are identifiable and accordingly shown separately. In view of above fact your honour's conclusion the "E" Wing project was approved in the year 1993 is factually incorrect.

You have mentioned that commencement certificate was granted on 9-6-1993 which is earlier than 1-10-1998 i.e., one of the conditions for eligibility to claim deduction under section 80-IB of Income-tax Act, 1961. In this regard my submissions are that direction to commence construction of "E" Wing is 10-3-2003 and not 9-6-1993 as mentioned in your letter. However commencement certificate dated 9-6-1993 shows intimation to commence construction of various buildings as stated above.

Deduction under section 80-IB is allowable to those undertakings undertakes developing and building housing projects approved before 31st day of March, 2005, by a local authority shall be hundred per cent of the profits derived in the previous year relevant to any assessment year from such housing project if,—

(a) such undertaking has commenced or commences development and construction of the housing project on or after the 1st day of October, 1998.
(b) the size of plot of land has a minimum of 1 acre.
(c) residential unit has a built-up area of not exceeding 1,000 sq.fts. if such unit is situated within the city of Delhi and Mumbai or within 25 kilometers from its municipal limits and 1,500 sq.fts. at any other place.

Your assessee has got plan approved for construction of Building "E" vide letter reference No. CHE/8173/BP/WS/AR of 11-10-2002 from Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, a local authority granting such approval for construction of building in Greater Mumbai (Copy of same is enclosed for your ready reference) subject to fulfilment of various conditions number 4 to 9 mentioned therein before granting C.C. Accordingly my client has fulfilled conditions and C.C. was granted on 10-3-2003 mentioning on continued sheet annexed to Commencement Certificate dated 9-6-1993.

In view of above Commencement Certificate cannot be said granted on 9-6-1993 for construction of building "E", since project itself was approved on 11-10-2002, conditions fulfilled during the period October, 2002 to March, 2003 and thereafter C.C. was granted on 10-3-2003.

In view of above your action to reject claim of 80-IB treating commencement date 9-6-1993 for building "E" is not justified and is not according to law.

Regarding reply of Architect, Mr. Prakash Sapre, that project was started in 1993 with Wing A and at that time C.C. was taken from B, M, C. Later B, C, D and E were added for which endorsement was taken place on same C.C. is correct to the extent that endorsement for commencement of construction of various wings on various dates.

(b) Regarding size of plot for construction of building "E" is less than 1 acre, if total land 2.36 acre is divided proportionately among other buildings i.e., A, B, C and D, I would like to state that neither it is specified in the section itself nor explanation to that effect is added by the draftsmen while framing the law. A Local Authority authorized to approve building projects have communicated approval vide reference CHE/8173/BP/WS/AR of 11-10-2002 shows building "E" is on Plot CTS Nos. 54.55, and 63 of Village Kandivali and area of such land is 2.36 acre i.e., more than 1 acre. Further my client while selling residential units in building A, B, C, D and E has not put any demarcation for use of land among unit holders and also there is no physical demarcation of land meant for building A, B, C, D and E.

Regarding reply of Architect Mr. Prakash Sapre that and occupied by "E" wing is less than 1 acre is true in the sense that construction of plinth area of building "E" is less than 1 acre. Section does not specify that (i) proposed construction of building must have plinth area that occupy at least 1 acre land, (ii) total construction area must be constructed as allowable for plot of minimum 1 acre i.e., as per D.C. Rules for the construction of building in Greater Mumbai on land of 1 acre can be used for maximum 43,560 sq.fts. (iii) However it is sufficient to built at least one residential unit of 1,000 sq.fts. or less on 1 acre land so as to eligible for reduction under section 80-IB.

In view of above your action to reject claim of section 80-IB on the basis of project building "E" is occupying and area less than 1 acre is not justified and is not according to law.

(c) Regarding merger of Flat Nos. 138 and 153 so as to make one unit I would like to state as under :

The Flat No. 138 contains Hall, Bed Room, Kitchen and 2 Toilets. The Flat No. 153 also contains Hall, Bed Room, Kitchen and 2 Toilets. These 2 are not only 2 separate Flats having independent Entrances but also having Entrances from two separate stairs viz., E-1 and E2.

Though my client has completed construction of 1st floor to 7th floor of 'E' Wing, the construction of Ground Floor of E Wing is not yet completed. My client have completed construction of External Walls of Flats bearing Nos. 138 and 153 but Internal Walls are not completed.

The non-construction of Internal Walls may give impression that both the Flats are combined, but the fact is both the Flats are independent Flats and on completing internal work of the flats as per approved plans the same fact shall become evident.

My client neither propose to combine the said 2 flats bearing Nos. 138 and 153 nor we have submitted any amendment proposal to Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai.

At present both these Flats are unsold and unoccupied. The construction work of the Ground floor has not been completed and O.C. has not yet been issued.

During the Process of Construction my client first complete R.C.C. structure which includes Columns, Beams and Slabs.

Next my client complete work of External Walls and thereafter only my client construct Internal Walls in accordance with the Approved Plans.

Prior to construction of Internal Walls, all the Flats on any one floor stand combined. It is only after construction of the Internal Walls that one can come to conclusion whether the Flats are constructed in accordance with Approved Plans or whether any two or more Flats are combined.

Reply to Q 0.5 Site Supervisor Mr. Viren Gosar confirms the event that on one occasion Jain Sadhus had delivered lectures to occupants of Dev Nagar for an hour or two for 2 or 3 days on the ground floor of 'E' Building.

It should be noted that Jain Sadhus and Sadhvis never possess a flat or stay in a Flat but they stay in Upashrayas temporarily and keep going from one place to another.

Reply to Q.6 Site Supervisor Mr. Viren Gosar confirmed that total area of both the flat is 1,466 sq.fts. if they are measured together.

Reply to Q. 7 Site Supervisor Mr. Viren Gosar confirms that there is no kitchen in the said flat but there is a provision of one kitchen in the said flat. As stated above internal work of both the flats is pending and hence there was no kitchen on the day of visit. Regarding provision of one kitchen as stated by the site supervisor has no base since plan was approved so as to have two independent flats and naturally containing two kitchens.

Regarding reply of Architect Mr. Prakash Sapre in response to Q. No. 8 since construction was going on my client has constructed a wall to separate flat no. 138 and flat no. 153 so as to make them according to approved plan.

Further since both the flats are ground floor and it was convenient to keep sanitary, bathroom fitting, pipes, cement bags and flooring materials and accordingly internal walls were not built.

Since both flats are unsold and un-occupied it cannot be said that there is a single residential unit having area of more than 1,000 sq.fts.

In view of above your action to reject claim of 80-IB on the basis of single residential unit having area of more than 1,000 sq.fts. is not justified and according to law.

In view of our above submission I request you to allow deduction under section 80-IB(10) of Income-tax Act, 1961."

The Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the reply given by the assessee. He rejected the claim of the assessee by giving the following reasons :—

(1) The original project was commenced before 1-10-1998 as C.C. was granted on 9-6-1993 in respect of Block A, B, C, D and E. The approval for Block 'E' is just an endorsement of the earlier C.C. and continuation of the earlier Wing.
(2) The assessee has used less than 1 acre of land in respect of Block 'E' that does not fulfil the condition laid down in section 80-IB (10)( b) of the Act.
(3) The assessee has amalgamated two '1-BHK' flats being 138 and 153 on the same floor of the 'E' Block and converted the same as an one flat resulting into the total area of more than 1,000 sq. ft. i.e., 1,466 sq.ft. and thus violated the condition of the section 80-IB(10)( c) of the Act that the area of the flats/Unit it should not be less than 1,000 sq.ft.

4. The assessee carried the issue before the Learned CIT(A) but without success. Ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision of the ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Laukik Developer v. Dy. CIT [IT Appeal No. 532 (Mum.) 2006, order dated 12-7-2006] and rejected the claim of the assessee by putting the stamp of his approval on the reasons given by the Assessing Officer for rejecting the claim of the assessee under section 80-IB(10) of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee is now before us.

5.1 Learned Counsel for the assessee vehemently submitted that there is no doubt about the fact that the C.C. in respect of the Block 'A' of the Housing Project was granted on 9-6-1993 and C.C. was further extended from time to time in respect of the Blocks 'B', 'C', 'D' and 'E' till 22-4-1998. It is argued that in respect of the Block 'E', which was planned on Survey No. 54C at Kandivali (West), Mumbai, the plan was approved on 11-2-2002 by MCGM. The project 'E' consisted of 32 residential units each having an area of less than 1000 sq. ft. Block 'E' is a totally new residential building project on plot bearing City Survey No. 54C and 54D at Kandivali village. As the permission was only granted to the assessee by virtue of the conversion of the land status from Surplus Vacant Land (SVL) into Within Ceiling Limit (WCL) by the State Government in the year 2001.

5.2 It is argued that as per the original plan in respect of Buildings 'A' to 'D', the same was approved without considering the future conversion. It is argued that the fresh project in respect of Building 'E' was also become possible due to the fact in the status of the land by the Government of Maharashtra. Learned Counsel referred to the copy of the order passed by the Principal Secretary, Deptt. of Urban Development, Government of Maharashtra dated 30-3-2001 as well as subsequent Corrigendum dated 23-4-2001 by the Addl. Collector, MCA (ULC), Greater Mumbai. It is submitted that the request was made by the original land owners to the Government to allow them land admeasuring 68.5 sq. mts. out of CTS No. 54A and Land admeasuring 138 sq. mts. out of City Survey No. 69 of the village Kandivali as a land "within ceiling limit" (WCL) which was declared as a surplus vacant land. He further argued that the surplus vacant land was spread over in the 3 different pieces of land and as the request was allowed, the assessee got the additional FSI for the Project building 'E'. It is argued that the concept of the project is mis-interpreted by both the authorities. The Housing Project does not mean that there must be group of buildings but it may restrict even to a single building in which tenements/units for less than 1,000 sq. ft. area are constructed. It is argued that assessee never claimed deduction in respect of Projects 'A' to 'D' buildings as the commencement was prior to 1-10-1998 but claimed the deduction in respect of Block 'E' which is an independent housing project which commenced in the year 2002 and it cannot be treated a part of the earlier projects in respect of buildings 'A' to 'D' for denying the legal deduction.

5.3 It is argued that in respect of the area of the plot, the objection of the Assessing Officer as well as the Learned CIT(A) is not correct. Nowhere, it is stated in section 80-IB(10) of the Act that the area should be separately demarcated. It is argued that the total area of the plot on which the building 'E' is constructed is 2.6 acre and that fulfils the requirement of condition laid down in section 80-IB(10)(b) of the Act as there is no specific demarcation of the area. Learned Counsel referred to the Paper Book where the copy of the plan in respect of Building 'E' is placed and submitted that as per the area statement, the total area of the project is 2.36 acres. Merely because some of the projects were undertaken independently on the said plot prior to 1-10-1998 which were not eligible for deduction under section 80-IB of the Act, it does not mean that if any housing project is taken after 1-10-1998, then there is a bar for the assessee not to commence the construction of the Housing Project on a land on which earlier some projects were constructed and to claim deduction in respect of said housing project. It is argued that the Legislative intention in prescribing the minimum area of a Plot of Land for the housing project is that there should be maximum benefit to the Society as the builder or developer can give more residential units and in the present case, as the total area of land is more than 1 acre, the assessee is eligible for deduction under section 80-IB.

6. It is further argued that in respect of the alleged violation of the area of the unit, both the flats were under construction on the date of the visit by the Income-tax officials during the course of the survey action under section 133A. Both the flats are at the ground level, and these were utilized for the purpose of storing the raw materials, cement etc. It is argued that it does not help the case of the Assessing Officer as both the flats were not complete in all respects and the same were under construction. Moreover, the Assessing Officer has admitted that subsequently, the wall was constructed and both the flats are separate, having the independent access from two different staircases. It is argued that there is no proof whatsoever for alleging the violation of the total area of the flat. He vehemently assailed the observations of the ld. Assessing Officer and CIT(A) on this issue by stating that when the flats were under construction, how the Assessing Officer came to the conclusion that the area of the flat is more than 1,000 sq.ft. when he himself admitted that as per the approved plan, the area of the flat is less than 1,000 sq.ft. The ld. Counsel relied on the following decisions :—

(1) Saroj Sales Organization v. ITO [2008] 115 TTJ 485 (Mum.).
(2) Asstt. CIT v. Bengal Ambuja Housing Development Ltd. [IT Appeal Nos. 1595 and 1735 (Kol.) of 2005, order dated 24-3-2006].
(3) Dy. CIT v. Brigade Enterprizes (P.) Ltd. [2009] 28 SOT 7 (Bang.)(URO).

7. Per contra, the ld. D.R. vehemently submitted that Block 'E' of the Building is a part of the existing project which was commenced by the assessee in the year 1993 and initial C.C. was granted to building 'A'. The assessee went on executing the projects by giving the names as Wings-'B', 'C', 'D' and 'E'. The C.C. was granted from time to time. It is argued that for availing the benefits of 80-IB(10), the first condition is that the assessee must have commenced the housing project after 1-10-1998. The ld. D.R. also referred to the Explanation 2 to section 80-IB(10) and submitted that if an approval in respect of housing project is obtained for more than once, then it shall be deemed to have been approved on the date on which, the building plan was approved for the first time. He, therefore, submitted that as the assessee has commenced the housing project prior to 1-10-1998 and Wing 'E' of the building is only the extension of the project, assessee is not eligible for deduction under section 80-IB. In respect of the area of the plot, the ld. D.R. vehemently submitted that the total area of the plot of the entire project is 2.36 acres on which all the five buildings are constructed, and if the assessee is claiming deduction under section 80-IB(10), then the basic condition in respect of size of plot of land that is he must commence the construction on an independent plot having the minimum area of one acre has not been complied with. It is argued that if the total area of the plot is proportionately allocated, then the area of block 'E' or Wing 'E', it is less than one acre and hence, for that reason also, as one of the fundamental condition is not fulfilled, the assessee cannot claim the benefit of section 80-IB(10) of the Act. In respect of the violation of the condition of the total area of the units, the ld. D.R. submitted that both units were physically inspected by the survey party. Moreover, the statements of the supervisors and the architect were also recorded under section 131 that support the case of the Assessing Officer in respect of less area of Unit or Flat and when the assessee realized that the deduction will not be available, then the assessee conveniently put the wall to show that both the flats are independent one. He, therefore, pleaded that the order of the ld. CIT(A) may be confirmed.

8. We have heard the rival submissions of the party. We also carefully considered all the facts which are placed before us. The core controversy in respect of the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80-IB(10) of the Act in respect of building 'E' constructed on plot bearing City Survey Nos. 54C and 54D at Kandivali village, Borivali (W), Mumbai is that there is no dispute that assessee has constructed the five different residential buildings which are named as Wings - 'A', 'B', 'C', 'D' and 'E'. In respect of the buildings 'A' to 'D', the assessee has not claimed any deduction under section 80-IB(10) of the Act. For the first time, the assessee has claimed deduction for the assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06 in respect of building 'E'. There is also no dispute about the fact that in respect of building 'A' and 'B', the C.C. was granted on 9-6-1993 and in respect of buildings No. 'C' and 'D', C.C. was granted on 12-8-1996 but in respect of Building No. 'E', the C.C. was granted on 10-3-2003. As per the reasons given by the Assessing Officer, it is stated that the assessee is not entitled for claiming the deduction under section 80-IB(10) of the Act on the following objections.

(1)Wing/Building 'E' is a part of the existing project which commenced prior to 1-10-1998.

(2)The area of the plot is less than one acre and that violates the requirement of clause (b) to section 80-IB(10) and

(3)The built-up area of the two of the units in Wing 'E' is more than 1,000 sq.ft. and that violates the condition put in clause (c) of section 80-IB(10) of the Act.

In respect of the first reservation of the Assessing Officer, we find that when the original plan for the Building 'A' was submitted to the Municipal Commissioner of Greater Bombay (MCGB), in fact at that point of time, there was not even a whisper regarding building 'E' on CC. As per the copy of the C.C. placed on record (Page No. 11 of the P.B.), it is seen that originally C.C. was granted to Building No. 1, i.e. 'A' Wing on 9-6-1993. As per the Rules, the same was given up to the plinth level only. Further permission was granted on same CC for the entire work of Building 'A' and also to the Ground + 4 floors of Building 'B' on 8-12-1993. It was further extended for entire work of Buildings 'A' and 'B' i.e. Ground + 7 floors and in respect of Building 'C' and 'D', it was granted up to the plinth level. Further on 6-6-1997, the same was further granted for ground and plus 4 floors for Building 'C' and plinth level of Wing 'D'. Likewise, in respect of Buildings 'A', 'B', 'C' and 'D', the C.C. was finally granted for the entire work of the Ground + 7 floors on 5-8-1998. In respect of Building 'E', the C.C. was granted for the plinth level as per approved plans dated 11-10-2002 and the finally for the entire work of Building 'E' permission was granted on 20-5-2003. It is pertinent to note here that while granting the C.C. step by step to Buildings 'A', 'B', 'C' and 'D', there is a reference of 4 Buildings only i.e. the 'A', 'B', 'C' and 'D' but in respect of Building 'E', there is no reference in the permissions granted on the CC for Buildings 'A', 'B', 'C' and 'D'.

9. Sub-section (10) of section 80-IB has undergone change by the Finance Act (No. 2) of 2004 with effect from 1-4-2005 and some of the conditions which were earlier in the statute were more liberalized. So far as the liberalization of the conditions in respect of the Housing Projects are concerned, those are not relevant to the issues before us hence, we are not referring the same. Relevant part of sub-section (10) to section 80-IB as applicable from 1-4-2005 reads as under :—

"80-IB. (1) Where the gross total income of an assessee includes any profits and gains derived from any business referred to in sub-sections (3) to (11), (11A) and (11B) (such business being hereinafter referred to as the eligible business), there shall, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section, be allowed, in computing the total income of the assessee, a deduction from such profits and gains of an amount equal to such percentage and for such number of assessment years as specified in this section.

(2) to (9) **

(10) The amount of deduction in the case of an undertaking developing and building housing projects approved before the 31-3-2007 by a local authority shall be hundred per cent of the profits derived in the previous year relevant to any assessment year from such housing project if,—

(a) such undertaking has commenced or commences development and construction of the housing project on or after the 1-10-1998 and completes such construction,—

(i) in a case where a housing project has been approved by the local authority before the 1-4-2004, on or before the 31-3-2008;
(ii) in a case where a housing project has been, or, is approved by the local authority on or after the 1-4-2004, within four years from the end of the financial 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 housing project shall be deemed 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 respect of such housing project is issued by the local authority;

(b) the project is on the size of a plot of land which has a minimum area of one acre :
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 re-construction or re-development 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;
(c) the residential unit has a maximum built-up area of one thousand square feet where such residential unit is situated within the cities 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; and
(d) the built-up area of the shops and other commercial establishments included in the housing project does not exceed five per cent of the aggregate built-up area of the housing project or two thousand square feet, whichever is less."

10. The first issue is to be decided before us is the interpretation of the phrase "Housing Project" which is contemplated in section 80-IB(10) of the Act. There is no definition of the term 'Housing Project' given either in the section 80-IB or in the Act itself. But so far as section 80HHBA, which provides for a deduction in respect of profits and gains derived from the execution of the Housing Project which are awarded on the basis of global tender and also aided by the World Bank, deduction is allowed as prescribed in sub-section (1) to section 80HHBA. In the said section, the Legislature had defined the expression "Housing Project" by way of explanation to mean that project for the construction of any building, road, bridge or other structure in any part of India. The concept of Housing Project in section 80HHBA is much more wider, but so far as section 80-IB(10) is concerned, as there is no definition of expression "Housing Project", then definition given in section 80HHBA will be internal aid to decide whether Housing Project means the project of the group of the buildings or whether it can be the project of a single building also. As per the definition of Housing Project in section 80HHBA, Housing Project includes construction of "any building". If the Legislature was desiring to define nature of the Housing Project for the purpose of section 80-IB(10), then either the specific definition would have been incorporated in the Act or it would have been explained by way of Explanation to section 80-IB.

11. In our opinion, the concept of Housing Project does not mean that there should be the group of the buildings and only then same is called as "Housing Project". In the present case, it is seen that initially, as per the documents on record i.e. copy of CC, the assessee had planned for four independent buildings, but, so far as Wing 'E' is concerned, that was only planned when the status of the surplus land was converted as 'Within Ceiling Limit' (WCL) and the assessee could get additional FSI for launching Wing 'E'. Another Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal has considered somewhat identical situation in the case of Saroj Sales Organization (supra) and said decision of the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal is more relevant also to decide issue before us. As in the said case, the different units of the building were completed step by step and it was the case of the Department that all the buildings were comprised of one project only. Rejecting the contention of the revenue, it is held as under :

"12. There is no dispute that the housing project in the case of 'Nisarg' is approved before 31-3-2005. The substituted section extended the benefit of 100 per cent deduction of income derived from housing projects approved up to 31-3-2007 but simultaneously imposed a restriction on the area of shopping complex that is permissible to be included in the housing project by inserting the sub-section 80-IB(10)(d) with effect from 1-4-2005. The legislature nowhere provided the definition of a housing project either in the section or anywhere in the Income-tax Act. Is it open for the revenue to consider all the housing activities undertaken by the assessee as one project or different projects ? The Concise Oxford Dictionary (9th Edition) defines a 'project' as a plan, a scheme, a planned undertaking, a usually long-term task undertaken by a student to be submitted for assessment. The commencement certificates in respect of building No. 1 were received by the principal developer on 7-3-2001 and 30-3-2001 respectively. But the commencement certificates for various wings were approved by the municipality as per the details given below :

	Wing-C	on 10-9-2001
	Wing-E	on 11-9-2001
	Wings-C, D-E, F and G	on 27-3-2002
	Wings-F and G	on 7-5-2002
	Wing-F1	on 23-9-2003

All the above wings are part of 'Nisarg' block and independent satisfies the necessary approval of a housing project. It really makes no difference whether M/s. Conwood Agencies had applied for or the assessee had applied to the municipal corporation to make any difference in deciding the assessee's claim for deduction under section 80-IB(10) of the Act. It must be appreciated that the main developer was M/s. Conwood Agencies (P.) Ltd. The sanction plan have only approved the construction of the dwelling-units of less than 1,000 sq.ft. in all the wings of the said project. There is no dispute that all the flats in these wings contain the eligible units. It is not open to the revenue to conclude the next project as part of the earlier housing project just to deny the statutory relief which the assessee is entitled in respect of the eligible housing project. In that way the legislative intention to give a relief to the assessee who are undertaken the low housing projects will get defeated. "Breezy" project which was meant for higher strata of the society. The assessee has segregated the same and in no way mixed in these projects either in the design or in the structural manipulation or in the provision of amenities and the assessee has not claimed any relief in respect of project which admittedly does not admit the test laid down under section 80-IB(10) of the Act. In our view, combining these two projects into one will lead to a result which manifestly will be unjust and absurd and defeat the very provisions of deduction sections. Unless there is a clear intention of the legislature the revenue cannot be permitted to do so. After all the assessee have obtained different commencement certificates and started on different periods of time. They are separate by time, space and statutory approvals and even in designs, maintenance of separate books of account. The revenue, in our view, is not right in treating both the projects as one and integrated without the facts warranting for such conclusion. In identical situation in the case of Bengal Ambuja Housing Development Ltd. (supra), the assessee was having a housing project which consisted of 261 residential units and the individual flat size varied between 800 sq.ft. to 3,000 sq.ft. and the total built-up area of that housing project was 3,46,599 sq.ft. The said project contained 150 residential units with a built-up area of individual unit of less than 1,500 sq.ft., the assessee's claim for deduction under section 80-IB(10) was not entertained. The Tribunal after appreciating the clear provisions of section 80-IB(10), which does not speak regarding such denial of deduction in case of profit from a housing complex containing both the small and large and large residential units and since the assessee has only claimed deduction on account of smaller qualifying units by fulfilling all the conditions as laid down under section 80-IB(10), the denial of claim by the assessee was held to be based on narrow and restricted interpretation of the provisions of clause (c) of section 80-IB(10) of the Act. They drew support from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT [1992] 196 ITR 188 (SC) , wherein it was held that provisions should be interpreted liberally and since the present case also, the assessee's claim should be accepted. This order of the Tribunal was taken up in appeal before the Kolkata High Court, the Kolkata High Court dismissed the appeal arising from this order. The ratio laid down by this Tribunal order, in our view, based on the same set of facts as exist in our present case are equally applicable and the assessee's claim for deduction of section 80-IB(10) in respect of the eligible units of this housing project is therefore, deserves to be accepted."

In the said case, the Tribunal has considered the decision of the another Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal at Kolkata in the case of Bengal Ambuja Housing Development Ltd. (supra).

12. In the present case, Building 'E' is planned and construction was commenced after 1-10-1998 and in our opinion, Building/Wing 'E' itself is a independent Housing Project as contemplated under section 80-IB(10) of the Act and it cannot be fastened with earlier buildings i.e. 'A', 'B', 'C' and 'D' which work was commenced in the year 1993. In respect of the argument of the ld. DR that in view of Explanation 2, which is newly inserted with effect from 1-4-2005, as the assessee has commenced construction of building "E" for which permission was originally granted cannot be accepted for our elaborate discussion on this issue hereinabove. We therefore reject the same as plan for Building-'E' was only approved for only once in the year 2002. We, therefore, hold that the conclusion drawn by both the authorities that the commencement of Wing 'E' is a continuation of the existing project is erroneous.

13. Now the next objection is in respect of the size of the plot of the land. There is no dispute about the fact that assessee acquired the Development Rights in respect of the plot which was admittedly 2.36 acres on which assessee executed the different building projects. The case of the Assessing Officer for rejecting the claim of the assessee is that if the said land is proportionately allocated among different buildings, then area allocated to building 'E' is less than one acre. As per clause (b) to section 80-IB(10), it is provided that the project should be on a size of plot of land which has the minimum area of one acre. As per the area statement given in the plans, we find that no specific demarcation in respect of the plot of 2.36 acres has been made. It is seen that the surplus land available with the assessee or earlier owner was given the status as 'Within Ceiling Limit' (WCL) and due to change or conversion of the land status, that the assessee was able to plan the project for Building Wing-'E'. The ld. Counsel brought to our notice, the correspondence made by the Maharashtra Chamber of Housing Industry, Mumbai with the Hon'ble Finance Minister, Government of India, New Delhi, seeking clarification of certain aspects on 10(23G) and section 80-IB(10). The main issue was in respect of the treatment to be given to the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) which is purchased by the Developer and used on the existing plot of land or the project. As per the letter dated 4-5-2001, it appears that the CBDT, New Delhi has replied giving the clarification that additional housing project on the existing housing project can qualify for exemption/deduction under section 10(23G) and 10-IB(10) provided the correct profit can be ascertained. So far as the present case is concerned, we have to take into consideration the entire area of the plot on which all the building projects have been planned i.e. A, B, C, D and E though some of the buildings do not qualify for deduction under section 80-IB(10) of the Act and admittedly, the same is also not claimed. We, therefore, do not agree with the view taken by the Assessing Officer as well as the learned CIT(A) that the assessee has violated the another condition in respect of the size of the plot.

14. Now we go to the third objection of the Assessing Officer for not allowing the deduction to the assessee i.e., in respect of the alleged excess area which was found during the physical visit by the survey party to Wing 'E'. As per the facts noted by the Assessing Officer, Flats 138 and 153 were merged together and hence, the total area of those two plots became 1466 sq.ft., in short it was more than 1000 sq.ft. The Assessing Officer has relied on the statements of the site supervisor Mr. Viren Gosar as well as Mr. Prakash L. Sapre, architect of the assessee company. The Assessing Officer has reproduced the questions and answers on page No. 3 of the assessment order. Now we have to deal with the statements of both these persons first. It is pertinent to note here that nowhere the Assessing Officer has recorded the statements of any of the partner to clarify this issue. So far as the site supervisor is concerned, it appears that there is a direct question put by the Assessing Officer being question No. 5 and Question No. 6 in respect of the alleged merger of two flats i.e., 138 and 153 on the Ground Floor in 'E' Wing. The site supervisor replied that the said two flats were combined for the convenience of the Jain Sadhus for religious purpose. In respect of the provision for kitchen, it is replied that there is no kitchen in the said flat i.e., Flat No. 138 and 153 but there is a provision of one kitchen in the said flat. So far as the statement of Mr. Prakash Sapre, the architect is concerned, he has replied that he was not aware of the merger of the two flats at ground floor in 'E' Wing and no amended plan was submitted to BMC for merger. In our opinion, the conclusion drawn by the Assessing Officer based on the submission of these two persons is totally erroneous for the following reasons :

(i) Nothing has been mentioned by the Assessing Officer that as per the approved plans, the total area of two alleged merger of the flats is more than 1000 sq.ft. i.e., 1468 sq. ft.
(ii) The site supervisor had stated that for the purpose of some religious function of the Jain Sadhus, it was kept open.

Moreover, as per the explanation of the assessee, as both the flats were on the ground floor, the said flats were used for storing the material and this is the normal use of the ground floor made by the builders. It is not the case of the Assessing Officer that any agreement was found selling both flats showing the area of 1466 sq. ft. on the date of the survey under section 133A. In our opinion, the third reason given by the Assessing Officer for rejecting the claim is also erroneous. In the light of our above findings and discussions, we are of the opinion that Wing 'E' is a separate Housing Project within the meaning of section 80-IB(10) of the Income-tax Act and as the said Housing Project is commenced after 1-10-1998 and also completed before 31-3-2005, the assessee is eligible to get the deduction under section 80-IB(10).

15. We further hold that there is no violation in respect of size of the plot on which building 'E' is constructed. As we have to take into consideration the total size of the plot under development, though part of the projects do not qualify for deduction. We further hold that the conclusion of the Assessing Officer in respect of alleged violation of the area of the flats i.e., flat No. 138 and 153 is also baseless and without merit. We, therefore, hold that assessee is entitled for deduction under section 80-IB(10) of the Act as all fundamental conditions are fulfilled by the assessee. We reverse the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to grant the deduction to the assessee under section 80-IB(10) of the Act.

16. The next issue is in respect of the disallowance of addition of Rs. 1,58,900 in respect of deposits forfeited. We have heard the parties. It was noticed by the Assessing Officer that assessee has written off the deposit of Rs. 1,58,900 which were given to the Corporation of Greater Bombay. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee as the deposit given to the Municipal Corporation, Greater Bombay cannot be treated as revenue loss as the same is in the nature of capital loss. On appeal before the learned CIT(A), the same was confirmed.

17. We have heard the rival submissions of the parties. The argument of the learned Counsel is that the deposits were given to the BMC for water connection, sewage connection etc. in the earlier years. As the assessee did not claim the said deposits in time, the same were forfeited and hence, the loss arose to the assessee is on account of revenue and cannot be said that it is a capital loss. No evidence or any material is filed before us to support the claim. At least, the assessee should have placed before us the relevant correspondence as well as the receipts of the deposits given to the BMC. The Assessee had already occasion to place the relevant material and evidence in the form of documents before the ld. CIT(A). In our opinion, as the assessee has failed to substantiate the claim and hence, we hold that the CIT(A) had rightly confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer.

18. In the result, assessee's appeal is partly allowed.

Vandana Properties v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 25(2), Mumbai

Structured Summary of the Judicial Order (R.S. Padvekar, Judicial Member)

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's (Assessee's) Arguments

Respondent's (Revenue's / Department's) Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Vandana Properties v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 25(2), Mumbai

Comments