JUDGMENT judgment of court was delivered by A. K. Menon J.-By this common judgment we dispose of six appeals filed under section 260A of Income-tax Act, 1961. For sake of convenience, we will deal with facts in Income Tax Appeal No. 3 of 2013. common question of law that has been proposed in Income Tax Appeals Nos. 3 of 2013, 62 of 2013, 1627 of 2012 and 1628 of 2012 is as under: "Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, hon'ble Tribunal was right in law in holding that assessee is eligible for deduction under section 80-IB(10) for assessment year 2006-07 relying on decision of hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT v. Vandana Properties in ITA No. 3633 of 2009 and 4361 of 2010 dated March 28, 2012, since reported in [2013] 353 ITR 36 (Bom) and special leave petition has been filed before hon'ble Supreme Court which is pending?" In Income Tax Appeals Nos. 1603 of 2013 and 1757 of 2013 two identical questions of law are proposed, although as worded, they can be distinguished from common question in Income Tax Appeals Nos. 3 of 2013, 62 of 2013, 1627 of 2012 and 1628 of 2013. two questions are as under: "(i) Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case and in law, hon'ble Tribunal is justified in holding that assessee is entitled to deduction under section 80-IB(10) when area of plot on which following project is constructed is less than 1 acre? (ii) Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case and in law, hon'ble Tribunal is justified in holding that assessee is entitled to deduction under section 80-IB(10), when area of flat constructed is more than 1,500 sq. ft.?" This judgment will deal with all questions in all above appeals. Vide order under section 147, read with section 143(3), dated December 16, 2010, Assessing Officer held that assessee has furnished particulars of income and, hence, his gross total income under section 143(3) is Rs. 1,33,12,423 and disallowed deduction under section 80-IB(10) of Income-tax Act. Assessing Officer held that claim for deduction under section 80-IB(10) pertains to residential units in project, which Assessing Officer found, was not satisfying upper limit of 1,500 sq. ft. as Assessing Officer found that one unit was with one kitchen, one entrance, one electric meter and single family ownership though it was contention of assessee's representative that two units have been merged together to form single unit at request of purchasers. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) found that appellant had not fulfilled condition of clause (b) of section 80-IB(10) and was not entitled for deduction under section 80-IB(10). According to Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), project is on plot of land which has minimum area of one acre. assessee then preferred appeal before Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. By order dated May 4, 2010, it allowed appeals. Tribunal concluded that flat area is less than 1,500 sq. ft. and, therefore, assessee was eligible for deduction under section 80-IB(10). Tribunal negated Departmental representative's contention agreement indicates super built-up area of more than 1,500 sq. ft. cannot be accepted as super built- up area includes common areas, stair cases and also balcony. Tribunal concluded that concept of super built-up area cannot be equated with built-up area as per regulations which refers to only to carpet area excluding balcony and terrace. Moreover, it is found by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has held in favour of assessee in assessment years 200304 and 2004-05 on same blocks and this was not disputed by Revenue. Accordingly, it was held that there is no dispute with reference to area of flats less than 1,500 sq. ft. in block E-5 and I. "project" as whole was found to have been standing on more than one acre area and apartments constructed therein are within 1,500 sq. ft. In this manner appeal was allowed. Being aggrieved by said decision Department has preferred this appeal raising aforesaid question/s. Mr. Chhotaray, learned counsel for appellant, submitted that Tribunal should have remanded matter for reconsideration instead of allowing appeal. Mr. Chhotaray placed reliance on judgment of this court in case of CIT v. Vandana Properties in Income Tax Appeal Nos. 3633 of 2009 and 4621 of 2010 since reported in [2013] 353 ITR 36 (Bom) and stated that Tribunal's order was incorrect. In fact special leave petition had been filed and is pending before hon'ble Supreme Court. Mr. Chhotaray, therefore, submitted that question be framed as aforesaid and impugned order dated May 4, 2012, passed by Tribunal be set aside. Mr. Gandhi, learned counsel for respondent, submitted that he supported order of Tribunal stressing on fact that in case of assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05 Revenue had not raised any objection for deduction claimed under section 80-IB(10). Thus, on factual aspects Tribunal, as last fact finding authority, has found that project complied with provisions of section 80- IB(10) and held that project was compliant with clause (b) as well although Assessing Officer had held otherwise. Having considered facts of case, we find that issue in these appeals relates only to section 80-IB(10)(b) and (c). Various amendments have been made to section 80-IB(10) by Finance Act 2003-04 which are as follows: "By Finance Act, 2003, further amendments were made to section 80- IB(10) and they read as under: '(10) amount of profits in case of undertaking developing and building housing projects approved before 31st day of March 2005, by local authority, shall be hundred per cent. of profits derived in any previous year relevant to any assessment year from such housing project if,- (a) such undertaking has commenced or commences development and construction of housing project on or after 1st day of October 1998; (b) project is on size of plot of land which has minimum area of one acre; and (c) residential unit has maximum built-up area of one thousand square feet where such residential unit is situated within cities of Delhi or Mumbai or within twenty-five kilometres from municipal limits of these cities and one thousand and five hundred square feet at any other place.'" As can be seen from aforesaid provision, now only changes that were brought about were that with effect from 1st April, 2002, (i) housing project had to be approved before March 31, 2005, and (ii) there was no time limit prescribed for completion of said project. Though these changes were brought about by Finance Act, 2003, Legislature thought it fit that these changes be deemed to have been brought into effect from April 1, 2002. All remaining provisions of section 80-IB(10) remained unchanged. Thereafter, by Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004, with effect from April 1, 2005, section 80-IB(10) was substituted and substantial changes were effected in newly substituted sub-section (10) of section 80-IB. It reads thus: "(10) amount of deduction in case of undertaking developing and building housing projects approved before 31st day of March, 2007, by local authority shall be hundred per cent. of profits derived in previous year relevant to any assessment year from such housing project if,- (a) such undertaking has commenced or commences development and construction of housing project on or after 1st day of October, 1998, and completes such construction,- (i) in case where housing project has been approved by local authority before 1st day of April, 2004, on or before 31st day of March, 2008; (ii) in case where housing project has been, or, is approved by local authority on or after 1st day of April, 2004, within four years from end of financial year in which housing project is approved by local authority. Explanation.-For purposes of this clause,- (i) in case where approval in respect of housing project is obtained more than once, such housing project shall be deemed to have been approved on date on which building plan of such housing project is first approved by local authority; (ii) date of completion of construction of housing project shall be taken to be date on which completion certificate in respect of such housing project is issued by local authority; (b) project is on size of plot of land which has minimum area of one acre: Provided that nothing contained in clause (a) or clause (b) shall apply to housing project carried out in accordance with scheme framed by Central Government or State Government for reconstruction or redevelopment of existing buildings in areas declared to be slum areas under any law for time being in force and such scheme is notified by Board in this behalf; (c) residential unit has maximum built-up area of one thousand square feet where such residential unit is situated within city of Delhi or Mumbai or within twenty-five kilometres from municipal limits of these cities and one thousand and five hundred square feet at any other place; and (d) built-up area of shops and other commercial establishments included in housing project does not exceed five per cent. of aggregate built-up area of housing project or two thousand square feet, whichever is less." (emphasis supplied) Furthermore, as Tribunal has correctly observed concept of "super built-up" area is used by builders to get higher price and super built-up area includes common area of stair-case and balcony area. Since super built-up area cannot be equated with built-up area it cannot be stated in instant case that area of flat is more than 1,500 sq. ft. There is no doubt that it is housing project and it does not include any commercial premises. Built-up area is also defined in section 80-IB(14)(a) to read as follows: "'built-up area' means inner measurement of residential units at floor level, including projections and balconies, increased by thickness of walls but not include common area shared with other residential units." words "including projections and balconies" were inserted with effect from April 1, 2005, by Finance Act of 2004. question whether definition of built-up area with effect from April 1, 2005, was prospective or retrospective in nature has been considered by this court in Income Tax Appeal No. 3315 of 2010 between CIT v. Tinnwala Industries which holds that this definition which has been brought on statute book with effect from April 1, 2005, would not apply to such projects which are completed prior to April 1, 2005. There are no distinguishing features brought on record which calls for any interference. Tribunal view is well reasoned and cannot be said to be perverse. Mr. Chhotaray's submission that matter should be sent back to Tribunal has no merit. In present set of facts, even if definition of built-up area is considered it makes no difference to assessee's case. In circumstances we answer question raised in present batch of appeals in affirmative that is in favour of assessee and against Revenue. As far as differently worded questions in Income Tax Appeal Nos. 1603 of 2013 and 1757 of 2013 are concerned, there is no doubt that area of entire project is more than one acre and area of flat is within limit of 1,500 sq. ft. as has been observed by Tribunal which is last fact finding authority. In circumstances those questions are also answered in favour of assessee and against Revenue. *** Commissioner of Income-tax v. Hermes Developers