JUDGMENT judgment of court was delivered by A. K. Menon J.-The above appeals are filed by Revenue for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07. Two common questions of law are said to be substantial questions of law. Since in Income Tax Appeal No. 1474 of 2013 has additional questions, we shall deal with facts in that case: respondent-assessee is proprietor of M/s. Ashish Developers carrying on business of development of properties. assessment order under section 143(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), was passed on December 29, 2008, which records that assessee was to develop project of 14 buildings and had acquired development rights from M/s. Jayshree Builders in respect of land admeasuring 5318.46 square metres. As on September 29, plan was sanctioned by Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation (KDMC) for project comprising 14 buildings. respondent made claim under section 80-IB(10) for deduction which came to be disallowed and addition came to be made to extent of Rs. 76,94,360. According to Assessing Officer, project exceeded prescribed limit of 2,000 sq. ft. of commercial space in buildings Nos. 4, 6 and 10. Being aggrieved by order, assessee filed appeal before Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who allowed appeal holding that assessee has complied with conditions laid down for claiming deduction. Revenue filed appeal before Tribunal, which was dismissed on December 31, 2012. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) observed that assessee had only constructed buildings Nos. 1 to 6 for which separate approval has been obtained and occupancy certificate is also obtained during time limit prescribed in section 80-IB(10) of Act. Being dissatisfied, Revenue filed appeal before Tribunal which dismissed appeal confirming order of Commissioner. It appears that Tribunal also relied upon decision of co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in case of Vidhi Developers. Tribunal found that assessee had undertaken work only in building Nos. 1 to 6 on plot admeasuring 5318.46 square metres equivalent to 1.33 acres. Tribunal observed that Assessing Officer found that project had initially been approved as early as July 2, 2003, for 14 buildings. However, only six buildings were completed by assessee and these were completed before March 31, 2008. It had constructed housing complex situated 25 kilometres away from municipal limits of Mumbai. It is also observed that built-up of commercial space area included in project did not exceed 2,000 square feet Assessing Officer had proceeded on misunderstanding of facts. He found that land was originally belonging to Krishna Balu Manerkar and development rights therein was originally purchased by M/s. Jayashree Developers and plan for entire land was sanctioned by KDMC on January 25, 2001, and April 5, 2003. M/s. Jayshree Developers were, however, not able to develop entire land and it disposed of development rights in respect of construction of six buildings to assessee and some others to M/s. Vidhi Developers. Three independent developers have developed three different projects on land. assessee did so in name and style of Shiv Amrut Dham. Vidhi was developed by Vidhi Developers and Amrut Dham by Jayshree Builders. Tribunal found that Assessing Officer has treated all three projects as one because common plan had been initially approved by KDMC. Thus, it was on this basis, Assessing Officer chose to disallow exemption on ground that project exceeded specifications. In instant case, both Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and Tribunal both fact finding authorities held that assessee developed only buildings Nos. 1 to 6 on plot admeasuring 5,318.46 square metres equivalent to 1.33 acres, vide approval dated September 29, 2004. Furthermore, commercial area was not in excess of 2,000 sq. ft. and project was completed on or before March 31, 2008, and completion certificate was obtained within time. Mr. Tevjeer Singh, appearing for Revenue, has submitted that substantial questions of law arise in case at hand. He further submitted that in case of Vidhi Builders this court in Income Tax Appeal No. 812 of 2012, vide order dated March 10, 2014, to which one of us (S. C. Dharmadhikari J.) was party has admitted appeal where following questions of law were was party has admitted appeal where following questions of law were framed as substantial questions of law: "(I) Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case and in law, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal failed to consider fact that area of plot for Vidhi Complex is below 1 acre and as such primary condition for claim of deduction under section 80-IB(10) of Income-tax Act, 1961, has not been fulfilled? (II) Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case and in law, hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal erred in coming to conclusion that exclusion of DP Road does not reduce size of plot, while on contrary accepting fact that plot in question was originally larger plot which was trifurcated with passing of two DP Road and, thus, treating one of 3 plots, i.e., plot in question being independent plot with net area of 3,461.68 square metres?" Mr. Tejveer Singh further submitted that Tribunal was wrong in having dismissed Revenue's appeal. On other hand, Mr. Hadade appearing for assessee submitted that facts in case of Vidhi Builders were not applicable, in present case, although on first blush it seems identical. Having heard counsel for both sides and having perused records, including orders of Assessing Officer, Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and Tribunal, we are of view that orders passed by Tribunal cannot be faulted. It is true that reliance placed on case of Vidhi Builders is not entirely correct. Vidhi Complex was constructed and completed on land which was less than 1 acre in size. It failed to comply with basic condition of section 80-IB(10) of Act. In present case, we find that assessee has complied with all requirement of provisions of section 80- IB(10) of Act since he has undertaken to commence development project on October 1, 1998, and completed project on or before March 31, 2008. Furthermore, it is seen that project completion has been complied by virtue of section 80-IB(10)(d) on plot of land which is 1.33 acres. criteria of minimum area of 1 acre required under section 80-IB(10)(a) had been met. It also complied with section 80-IB(10)(c) of Act since area was situated within 25 kilometres from limits of Mumbai city and, therefore, was eligible for exemption of flat of size of 1,500 square feet approximately. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and Tribunal also found that commercial establishment in present project was less than 2,000 square feet. Hence, we are of view that no fault can be found with order of Tribunal. No substantial questions of law arise in present case. In Appeal No. 1474 of 2013 two additional questions have been framed which again do not raise any substantial question of law. It is matter of record that it has been found that area of commercial space and plot developed by Vidhi Developers are different which raised questions of law. In present set of facts, none of questions proposed by Revenue raise any substantial questions of law. Both appeals are, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. *** Commissioner of Income-tax v. Suresh L. Wadhwa (HUF)