IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, AM AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM . I.T.A. No.6754 Mum 2014 ( Assessment Year: 2008-09) Income Tax Officer, Shiv Om Universal, Ward 2(4), A-10, Ganesh Krupa, Mumbai Vs. Near Sneha Building, Katrap, Badlapur (E)-421 503 . . PAN GIR No. AAVFS 5403 J ( Appellant) : ( Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Vachaspati Tripathi Respondent by : Shri Shriram Bajaj : 02.06.2016 Date of Hearing : 22.09.2016 Date of Pronouncement O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This is Appeal by Revenue directed against Order by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Thane ( CIT(A) for short) dated 01.8.2014, partly allowing Assessee s appeal contesting its assessment u s.143(3) r w s. 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961 ( Act hereinafter) for assessment year (A.Y.) 2008-09 vide order dated 28.3.2013. 2. only issue arising per instant appeal is maintainability in law of deduction u s. 80-IB(10) of Act claimed by assessee builder and developer, qua its housing project Krishna Complex , Badlapur, Thane. same stands denied by Revenue on ground that said project is not completed by 31.3.2008, 2 ITA No. 6754 Mum 2014 (A.Y. 2008-09) ITO vs. Shiv Om Universal last date by which said project, approved on 22.5.2001 (i.e., prior to 01.4.2004) ought to have been completed u s. 80-IB(10)(a)(i) r w Explanation (ii) thereto. assessee s case, on other hand, rests on fact that seven of eight buildings comprising project, i.e., except Building A-4, stand completed by 31.3.2008, as signified by completion certificates. assessee be accordingly allowed proportionate deduction, i.e., other than on profit relatable to building A-4. ld. CIT(A) has allowed assessee s claim following decision by first appellate authority in assessee s case for A.Y. 2009-10, wherein reference is made to following decisions: CIT vs. Vandana Properties [2013] 353 ITR 36 (Bom); Vishwas Promoters (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT [2013] 29 Taxmann.com 19 (Mad); and CIT vs. Brahma Associates [2011] 333 ITR 289 (Bom) 3. We have heard parties, and perused material on record, including cited judgments. 3.1 We begin by reproducing provision as under: Deduction in respect of profits and gains from certain industrial undertakings other than infrastructure development undertakings. 80-IB. (1) Where gross total income of 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 eligible business), there shall, in accordance with and subject to provisions of this section, be allowed, in computing total income of assessee, deduction from such profits and gains of amount equal to such percentage and for such number of assessment years as specified in this section. (2) . (10) amount of deduction in case of undertaking developing and building housing projects approved before 31st day of March, 2008 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, 3 ITA No. 6754 Mum 2014 (A.Y. 2008-09) ITO vs. Shiv Om Universal (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) . (iii) . 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 .. (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; (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 of two thousand square feet, whichever is less. [emphasis, ours] 3.2 We firstly observe that assessee s contention that housing project could be under circumstances restricted to seven buildings, or that each building be considered as separate housing project for purposes of section 80-IB(10), so that proportionate deduction there-under is exigible, is misplaced and does not follow reading of decisions cited and relied upon. Rather, Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Brahma Associates (supra) has categorically held that project as approved by local authority is to be considered as housing project for purposes of section 80-IB(10) and, two, that project there-under is single 4 ITA No. 6754 Mum 2014 (A.Y. 2008-09) ITO vs. Shiv Om Universal project, on entire of which, where eligible, deduction u s. 80-IB(10) is to be allowed. We extract relevant part of said decision, which is clear and unambiguous, as under: (refer para 31 pgs. 302-303, also catch notes at pgs. 290-291) Section 80-IB(10) allows deduction to entire project approved by local authority and not to part of project. If conditions set out in section 80-IB(10) are satisfied, then deduction is allowable on entire project approved by local authority and there is no question of allowing deduction to part of project. 3.3 Before proceeding further, we may extract findings by Tribunal in assessee s case for A.Y. 2009-10 (in ITA No. 5375 Mum 2013 dated 08.6.2015 copy on record), dismissing Revenue s appeal raising same issue and, accordingly, relied upon before us: 6. We find that issue raised in present appeal is squarely covered by jurisdictional High court in case of Vandana Properties (supra) and M s. Brahma Associates (supra), which in turn has been affirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court in bunch of appeals with lead in Civil Appeal No.4476 2015 judgment dated 29.04.2015. Accordingly, we hold that assessee is entitled to (its) claim of deduction u s. 80IB(10) of Act in respect of seven buildings completed before 31.03.2008. Accordingly, we uphold order of CIT(A). grounds of appeal raised by revenue are dismissed. Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Brahma Associates (supra) holds, on contrary, that there is no question of allowing deduction on part of project. tribunal s order (supra) accepting assessee s claim, stating it as covered by decisions in Vandana Properties (supra) and Brahma Associates (supra), could, in view of clear injunction by Hon'ble Court in Brahma Associates (supra) clarifying scope and meaning of term housing project u s. 80-IB(10) as well as scope of provision itself, is therefore apparently inconsistent therewith, i.e., latter decision, which is binding on us. There is no discussion of import or context of extracted findings in Brahma Associates (supra), rendered in 5 ITA No. 6754 Mum 2014 (A.Y. 2008-09) ITO vs. Shiv Om Universal context of qualifying condition of section 80-IB(10)(d), forming basis of decision by Hon ble Court, in said order by tribunal, which upholds decision by first appellate authority allowing deduction to part of project, reproducing his findings at para 5 of its order (which is followed by para 6, reproduced above), as under: 5. only issue arising in this appeal is relevant findings of CIT(A) are as under: 4.1 ld. AR has vehemently relied upon decision of Hon ble High Court in case of CIT vs. Vandana Properties (2012) 19 taxmann.com 316 (Bom), wherein it has been held that where housing project is consisted of several buildings then even one building with several residential units would constitute Housing Project u s. 80IB(10) of Act. Similarly, in case of Vishwas Promoters (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT (2013) 29 Taxmann.com 19 (Mad), which has been also relied upon by appellant, it has been held that each block could be considered as separate housing project when larger project consisted of various blocks. In this case, deduction u s. 80IB(10) on principles of proportionality as well as by reason of construction on meaning of expression "Housing Project" has been held to be allowable. Hon ble Madras High Court while delivering judgment in this case has relied upon decisions of Hon ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Brahma Associates (2011) 333 ITR 289 and CIT vs. Vandana Properties (2012) 206 Taxman 584. Since facts of case of appellant are identical decisions of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Vandana Properties (supra) and Hon ble Madras High Court in case of Vishwas Promoters (P) Ltd. (supra) clearly support case of appellant. Moreover, decision of Hon'ble Bombay high Court being jurisdictional one, is binding on me. Therefore, I am of considered view that 7 buildings completed within stipulated time comprising of more than 1 acre built up are constitute separate housing project in case of appellant and accordingly, appellant is 6 ITA No. 6754 Mum 2014 (A.Y. 2008-09) ITO vs. Shiv Om Universal entitled to deduction u s. 80IB in respect of profit derived from such buildings. Thus, only in respect of building No.A-4 which has not been completed before 31 03 2008, appellant is not entitled to claim deduction u s 80IB(10). From facts available on record, it appears that appellant itself has not claimed deduction u s. 80IB(10) on Building No.A-4 of Krishna Complex. However, assessing officer is directed to verify this fact from record disallow deduction u s. 80IB(1) only in respect of Building No.A-4 which has not been completed within stipulated time. [emphasis, ours] There is, it may be emphasized, no concept of partial satisfaction of qualifying condition s, i.e., for eligibility, of project (which is subject matter of eligibility), so that it is either eligible or not, i.e., in terms of qualifying conditions, resulting in its profits being either deductible or not so in terms of relevant provision. In fact, Brahma Associates (supra) stands since upheld by Hon ble Apex Court (reported at CIT vs. Sarkar Builders & Others [2015] 375 ITR 392 (SC)). Further, other decisions relied upon are in different contexts. factual matrix of case cannot but be kept in view to fully appreciate ratio of decision. In Vandana Properties (supra), Hon ble High Court was considering eligibility of building which came up much later on site of existing housing project, completed much earlier. issue was as to how land size, which is required per section 80-IB(10)(b) to be at minimum of one acre for eligible housing project, is to be reckoned; Revenue denying claim on ground that land already considered for earlier, completed (before 01 10 1998) project could not be once again taken into account. Even considering proportionate land, its size fell below one acre. This did not find favour both with Tribunal and Hon ble High Court which clarified that land for purpose of housing project u s. 80-IB(10) does not necessarily imply (wholly) vacant land. additional building E that came up much later was approved independently on 11 10 2002, only after status of 7 ITA No. 6754 Mum 2014 (A.Y. 2008-09) ITO vs. Shiv Om Universal land was converted from surplus vacant land to within ceiling land by State Government. And was therefore to be considered as separate project, independent of earlier project, with which it had no relation. As long as therefore land size as per project as approved was not less than one acre, deduction could not be denied. It was in this context that separate building was considered as independent project. decision nowhere contradicts earlier decision by Hon ble Court in Brahma Associates (supra). decision in Vishwas Promoters (P.) Ltd. (supra) stood again rendered in different context, i.e., of section 80-IB(10)(c), wherein restriction is cast on size of residential units in housing project. Clearly, residential unit and housing project, of which former is part component, are conceptually different, signifying different objects notions. To say, therefore, that each residential unit is housing project for purposes of section 80-IB(10)(c), apart from being inconsistent with reality, in contradiction with decision in Brahma Associates (supra), unequivocally clarifying project to be one as approved by local authority and, further, single project. This aspect of matter stands also discussed at length by tribunal in Asst. CIT vs. Ekta Sankalp Developers [2015] 152 ITD 805 (Mum), which was again in context of section 80-IB(10)(c). While holding, following Brahma Associates (supra), housing project to be single project qua which deduction, therefore, cannot be allowed in part, tribunal was of view that condition contained in section 80-IB(10)(c), however, applies qua residential unit and not project per se. As such, each residential unit that satisfies condition of provision would form part of eligible project. In result, assessee would be entitled to deduction under provision in relation to profit relatable to qualifying residential units, i.e., in proportion. Further, decision in Brahma Associates (supra) is also rendered in context of qualifying condition, i.e., condition precedent, per cl.(d) of s. 80-IB(10), and forms,as afore-stated, basis of its decision. To, therefore, say that decision in Vandana Properties (supra) and Brahma Associates (supra) squarely cover 8 ITA No. 6754 Mum 2014 (A.Y. 2008-09) ITO vs. Shiv Om Universal issue at large, as does tribunal vide its order dated 8 6 2015 supra and, therefore, is covered by said order by tribunal itself, cannot be accepted. Why, project is either complete, or not so, by particular date, so that qualifying condition of section 80-IB(10)(a) is either met or not. question of it being satisfied in part; project comprising eight buildings, all of which are admittedly not complete by 31.03.2008, does not arise. course thus available for us is to refer matter to larger bench of tribunal. We, however, on careful and anxious consideration of matter, including decision in Brahma Associates (supra), binding on us, for reasons stated hereinafter, are inclined to agree with assessee s claim in preference to that of Revenue. Our conclusion being in agreement with that by tribunal (supra), we do not consider it necessary to refer matter to larger bench, also explaining apparent conflict of said order with judgment in Brahma Associates (supra). 3.4 dispute in present case is with reference to date of completion of construction of housing project, which stands provided in provision itself as being date on which completion certificate is issued in respect of such housing project by local authority (Explanation (ii) to sec. 80-IB(10)(a)). first issue therefore would be if project could be considered as complete, i.e., in terms of Act, to any extent, in view of admitted position that provision contemplates completion of entire project and not part of it. That is, if cognizance could be given under provision to this fact or, put differently, could housing project be considered as complete to any extent where same does not extend to all buildings of project? We consider it as so. Our reason for so stating is that each of buildings, stated to be seven (being A1, A2, A3, B1, B2, C1 and C2), stand granted completion certificate in terms of Regulation 6(6) of Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991 issued under 9 ITA No. 6754 Mum 2014 (A.Y. 2008-09) ITO vs. Shiv Om Universal Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act), which, along with Regulations 6(7) and 6(8), reads as under: 6) Completion certificate:- owner, through his licensed plumber, shall furnish drainage completion certificate to Commissioner in form in Appendix 'XIX'. owner through his licensed surveyor engineer structural engineer supervisor or his architect, who has supervised construction, shall furnish building completion certificate to Commissioner in form in Appendix XX. These certificates shall be accompanied by three sets of plans of completed development. Commissioner shall inspect work and, after satisfying himself that there is no deviation from approved plans, issue certificate of acceptance of completion of work in form in Appendix XXI. (7) Occupancy certificate:- On receipt of acceptance of completion certificate in form in Appendix XXI, owner, through his licensed surveyor engineer structural engineer supervisor of his architect shall submit to Commissioner development completion certificate in form in Appendix XVIII with three copies of completion plan, one of which shall be cloth mounted for record. Commissioner may inspect work and after satisfying himself that there is no deviation from sanctioned plans, issue occupancy certificate in form in Appendix XXII or refuse to sanction occupancy certificate within 21 days from date of receipt of said completion certificate, falling which work shall be deemed to have been approved for occupation, provided construction conforms to sanctioned plans. One set of plans, certified by Commissioner as completed plans, shall be returned to owner along with occupancy certificate. Where occupancy certificate is refused or rejected, reasons for refusal or rejection shall be given in intimation of rejection or refusal. (8) Part occupancy certificate :- When requested by holder of development permission, Commissioner may issue part occupancy certificate for building or part thereof, before completion of entire work as per development permission, provided sufficient precautionary measures are taken by holder to ensure public safety and health. occupancy certificate shall be subject to owner's indemnifying Commissioner in form in Appendix XXIII. [emphasis, ours] 10 ITA No. 6754 Mum 2014 (A.Y. 2008-09) ITO vs. Shiv Om Universal Clearly, completion certificate , which Act prescribes as signifying completion, represents stage anterior to issue of occupancy certificate. Further, though Act postulates completion certificate in respect of housing project, same, under relevant law, is only issued qua each separate building comprising project. This also explains as to how and why completion certificates were issued at different times (from 22 7 2005 to 27 3 2008, and finally to eighth building on 25 11 2009) for different buildings in present case (refer para 3 of assessment order). Even assuming that completion certificate is finally issued, i.e., on completion of entire work as per sanctioned plans of which there is though no indication, it is clear that same regulations that provide for application for completion certificate, i.e., for entire project, signifying its completion as per approved plans, also envisage issue of completion and, subsequent thereto, occupancy certificate for building or part of it, observing same procedure and adhering to same guidelines, by same authority, and on same basis, i.e., satisfaction, on same parameters, as it does for granting completion and, following it, occupancy certificate for entire project. same thus has same validity in eyes of law, i.e., law under which it is granted. To clarify further, building forming part of project, to which such certificate s stands granted, cannot be under relevant regulations regarded as any less complete than were it, instead of part of housing project, to comprise whole project itself. That is, even forming part of project, completion certificate issued thereto accords building same status as regards its completion as it would where such certificate is issued in case of single building comprising independent project. completion and (part) occupancy certificates issued derive their strength and validity from same principal source, i.e., D&C Regulations under MRTP Act, that confer validity to completion or occupancy certificate issued by local authority. Rather, as it appears, such certificates are issued only building- wise. Further, Act recognizing completion certificate qua project, i.e., as 11 ITA No. 6754 Mum 2014 (A.Y. 2008-09) ITO vs. Shiv Om Universal signifying it s completion, cannot therefore possibly not recognize completion of building comprising project, i.e., by deduction. Why, would not relevant housing project be regarded as complete, i.e., under MRTP Act and, consequently, under Act, upon issue of completion certificate to only incomplete (eighth) building comprising assessee s project? It would be absurdity, contradiction, to suggest otherwise. We accordingly answer question posed in affirmative. 3.5 We may next consider question if deduction u s. 80-IB(10) could be allowed to assessee s relevant housing project, admittedly comprising eight buildings, on profit derived on that part of project that is complete, ignoring that which is yet to be completed (by prescribed date). Where said two parts are, to any extent, related, there is no question of project being regarded as complete to any extent. reason is that project , to be considered as such, must necessarily have all qualitative attributes and ingredients thereof, i.e., of project as approved, which only would qualify it as representing housing project, as approved, which is, by definition, housing project u s. 80-IB(10), as explained in Brahma Associates (supra). For example, project may have school, dispensary, park, convenient shopping facility, community or health sports centre, etc., i.e., amenities, or common utilities, which is are not complete. Surely, pending completion of same, or such like parts of project, forming integral part of and servicing entire project, project cannot be regarded as complete to any extent. Where, on other hand, same concerns two parts of project, which are independent of each other, as (say) two residential buildings, it is unexceptional as to why project cannot be regarded as complete to that extent, i.e., in terms of and following completion parameters as prescribed by Act itself. independence of-course should be both with reference to construction as well as functional. two buildings being independent of each other, could be constructed independent of each other, as signified by issue of separate completion certificate qua each building, 12 ITA No. 6754 Mum 2014 (A.Y. 2008-09) ITO vs. Shiv Om Universal as in present case. We say so as completion of one such (independent) building, in respect of which completion (occupancy) certificate stands issued, admits of habitation, providing inhabitants access to all infrastructural facilities and amenities of project. Residence and living, which is sole purpose of any residential project, is wholly un-influenced by non-completion (by stipulated date) of similar building forming part of approved housing project. We, in doing so, have adopted purposive interpretation of provision. This is as it would be manifestly unjust where part of project, complete in itself, is not regarded as qualifying as eligible despite complying with conditions of completion in its respect. We employ words complete in itself as where it is not so, project suffers from deficiency qua qualitative attribute that would get removed on completion of that part of project. statute mandates completion of entire project, implying full functionality, so that there could be no dilution on that aspect thereof. As such, where there all qualitative attributes of composite project are in place, so that it can be regarded as representing project as defined, we see no reason as to why completion of part of project cannot be regarded as completion of project, as approved, to that extent, entitling it to proportionate deduction. We emphasize this in view of clear provision of law as well as clear mandate of decision in Brahma Associates (supra), so that deduction u s. 80-IB(10) is to extend to project as whole, which is one, single project. It is even otherwise well settled that only cumulative satisfaction of all conditions of eligibility entitles subject undertaking to qualify as one and, further, that there is no equity about tax and provisions of taxing statutes are to be strictly construed, as once again clarified by Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court recently in Humayun Suleman Merchant vs. CCIT [2016] 73 taxmann.com 2 (Bom). This is more so in case of exemption provision as explained time and again by Apex Court, as in Novopan India Ltd. vs. CCE [1994] 73 ELT 769 (SC). In Brahma Associates (supra), ratio of which is binding on us, provision under reference 13 ITA No. 6754 Mum 2014 (A.Y. 2008-09) ITO vs. Shiv Om Universal was section 80-IB(10)(d), inserted w.e.f. 1.04.2005, providing commercial user, by way of convenient shopping or other commercial establishment to specified extent. tribunal allowing deduction on residential part of project, Hon ble Court held that provision is qua deduction on profits of entire housing project, which is one, indivisible project. term housing project being not specifically defined in section 80-IB(10), same was to be taken as approved by local authority, i.e., for purpose of section 80-IB(10). Further, being substantive provision, section 80-IB(10)(d) would have no retrospective application. relevant year being A.Y. 2003-04, for which there was no restriction in section 80-IB(10) as to commercial user, tribunal, it clarified, had erred in restricting disallowance to commercial area qua which therefore no stipulation, i.e., to any extent, which could not be imported in provision, noting, with reference to D&C Regulations of different Municipal Corporations, commercial user as varying between 5% and 50% of total built-up area. said decision stands since upheld in Sarkar Builders (supra). word project in Brahma Associates (supra) is being thus read by us as including that part of approved project which has all attributes of entire project. This is toward and by way of harmonious construction and reconciliation between intent and object of provision on one hand, and its language on other. Without doubt, completion of project forms one of qualifying conditions for eligible project. So however, completion of construction of part of project not completed is (to be) independent of that completed (by specified date). two, as emphasized, are, again, not functionally related. Residence in part completed, as in seven buildings in instant case, would thus not be impacted in any manner by non-completion of incomplete part (eighth building). completion of construction, it needs to be appreciated, is condition extrinsic and not intrinsic to project. It may well be that despite all efforts by Developer, part could not be completed within statutorily defined time 14 ITA No. 6754 Mum 2014 (A.Y. 2008-09) ITO vs. Shiv Om Universal period. Again, there could exist conditions or otherwise develop circumstances in environment impeding progress of project, causing its delay. statutory mandate qua completion, as qualifying condition, would, therefore, meaningfully applied, in our view, extend to that part of project, which has all ingredients of project, as approved, i.e., is capable of being regarded as complete project in itself, so that it is deficient only with reference to size of project. incident of taking approval of all buildings together, or of conceiving project at particular size, should not act as detriment in providing relief. land area would also, as explained in Vandana Properties (supra), have to be taken with reference to project as approved. We are, when we say so, also conscious that it may well be that remaining, incomplete part of project is not brought to completion even subsequently. This consideration would not disturb our conclusion in any manner. reason is simple, i.e., that project completed by specified date is complete project in itself, liable to be regarded as separate project, albeit smaller in size. functional independence would also ensure that completed project meets approval standards under D & C Regulations with reference to which project is approved by local authority. In sum 4. assessee stands allowed relief by ld. CIT(A) following decision by first appellate authority in assessee s case for A.Y. 2009-10, which stands since upheld by tribunal (supra), which found decisions in case of Vandana Properties (supra) and Brahma Associates (supra) as squarely covering issue at hand. There is no discussion of facts of those cases and or ratio decendi of those decisions, or even of law laid down per said decisions, which alone is binding. same, holding project as approved as being housing project u s. 80- IB(10) and, therefore, as one, single project, so that there is no question of deduction on part of project, which forms basis of decision in these judgments, 15 ITA No. 6754 Mum 2014 (A.Y. 2008-09) ITO vs. Shiv Om Universal said order by tribunal, rather than following Hon ble High Court, is, with respect, in apparent conflict therewith and de hors same. decision in Vishwas Promoters P. Ltd.(supra), other decision relied upon in-as-much as same stands referred to in order by first appellate authority which finds reproduction in tribunal s order (supra), is also in direct conflict with decision in Brahma Associates (supra), since affirmed by apex court in Sarkar Builders (supra). It is also axiomatic that project either qualifies, i.e., as whole, as eligible project, or not. Following tribunal s order (supra) could thus only be at peril of not following at least prima facie, binding decision in Brahma Associates (supra), clarifying scope of deduction u s. 80-IB(10) and binding on us. On ld. AR being so confronted by Bench during hearing, reading relevant part of Brahma Associates (supra), extracted above (refer para 3.2), he would, seeking time, place on record Regulations under MRTP Act (which stand reproduced in this order), further pleading that completion parameters for completion of building are same under said regulations as for housing project as whole, which must therefore be taken as signifying completion for purposes of Act, resting his case at that. We, in this regard, observe that relevant D & C Regulations (which are in public domain) only speak of completion certificate qua building and, accordingly, completion certificates are issued separately for each building. housing project would therefore be considered as complete on issue of completion certificate for last building. Though we are therefore not required to consider case where D & C Regulations provide for completion certificate qua project, i.e., in facts of present case, even extending argument, as it may be so in given case, or where each of buildings form part of composite project, completion certifying that all it s functional or qualitative attributes are in place, cannot but be regarded as representing whole project, albeit smaller in size and, therefore, complete to that extent. This is as issue of completion certificate, 16 ITA No. 6754 Mum 2014 (A.Y. 2008-09) ITO vs. Shiv Om Universal which law stipulates as signifying completion, qualifying condition for eligibility, cannot but, and does indeed, similarly, signify completion, of building s comprising project. Completion, it may be appreciated, is not functional attribute, or concomitant, of project. condition of completion by specified date as eligibility criterion is, on other hand, extrinsic to project. In given case, it may well be outside control of Developer, rendering provision un- compliable. In contradistinction, s. 80-IB(10)(d), as explained in Sarkar Builders (supra), is inextricably linked with approval and construction of housing project. same cannot be said of clause (a) thereof, which must therefore be regarded as stipulation. What thus obtains for s. 80-IB(10)(d) may not hold good in context of clause (a) thereof. This is also conclusion that follows careful reading of provision of law (sec. 80-IB(10)) as well as cited decisions. In Brahma Associates (supra), binding on us, Hon ble High Court was considering condition of sec. 80-IB(10)(d), which impinges on inherent feature, configuration or qualitative aspect of project. This thus then distinguishes said decision, i.e., with reference to present case; it being trite that decision to be read in factual backdrop and context in which it is rendered. This is as words take their colour from context in which they are used (CIT vs. Venkateswar Hatcheries (P.) Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 174 (SC)). Again, as explained in Goodyear India Ltd. vs. State of Haryana and Another [1991] 188 ITR 402 (SC), precedent is authority only for what it actually decides and not what may remotely or even logically follow from it (also: CIT v. Sun Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. (1992) 198 ITR 297 (SC); Blue Star Ltd. v. CIT (1996) 217 ITR 514 (Bom.)). Considering it as stipulation, rather than qualitative attribute, same can be regarded as met where project is otherwise complete in all respects, i.e., has all ingredients of entire project, save its size. purposive and harmonious construction of provision leads us to regard condition of completion (by specified date) as stipulation, so that, though mandatory, shall have effect of 17 ITA No. 6754 Mum 2014 (A.Y. 2008-09) ITO vs. Shiv Om Universal excluding that part of project which does not meet said stipulation. Rather, could, one may ask, uniform completion date be prescribed for all housing projects, which may vary in several respects, besides get beset with construction issues wholly outside province of Builder, i.e., get embroiled in factors that are extrinsic to project. intent of Legislature in providing completion date, as we understand, is to restrict benefit to where project is not set on indefinite course and is completed in time bound manner. Any exigency may intervene to delay project. statutory mandate is, nevertheless, to be respected. part of project completed in time, i.e., per same standards and parameters as prescribed by Act for and signifying completion, would accordingly recommend itself as eligible for deduction. project completed should be, without doubt, functionally independent of that not complete, having all ingredients of project as approved. reason is that only completed project can be said to contain all ingredients of project, quantitative or qualitative. As such, only project which contains all features of whole project can be said to be project , or is liable to be considered as one such, i.e., in substance, being deficient - with reference to entire project, only in size. So reading provision of section 80-IB(10)(a) along with Explanation (ii) thereto would ensure object of provision while at same time preventing mischief sought to be curbed by confining deduction to project that is completed within reasonable time, set at four years from end of year of its commencement, with existing projects being also allowed, similarly, another period of four years, eschewing any charge of inequity. housing project which is complete in all its functional aspects, meeting all infrastructural facilities that on completion would accrue to residents thereof, can only be regarded as representing project as approved, bearing its ingredients, so that it would qualify as eligible project even where part of residential complex is not complete by specified date. This is as it is again trite law that though being required to be strictly construed, in-as-much as exemption is exception to general rule, once subject falls 18 ITA No. 6754 Mum 2014 (A.Y. 2008-09) ITO vs. Shiv Om Universal within purview of provision, so that same is applicable, it is to be construed liberally (refer: Union of India v. Wood Papers Ltd. (1990) 4 SCC 256: AIR 1991 SC 2049 (at pp. 2051-52); Hansraj Gordhandas v. H.H. Dave AIR 1970 SC 755). We also derive support from Bajaj Tempo Ltd. vs. CIT [1992] 196 ITR 188 (SC), wherein it stands held as under: [Head Notes at pg. 189] provision in taxing statute granting incentives for promoting growth and development should be construed liberally; and since provision for promoting economic growth has to be interpreted liberally, restriction on it too has to be construed so as to advance objective of section and not to frustrate it. True, there is no equity about tax, and two make strange bed fellows. However, as explained in R. B. Jodhamal Kuthiala vs. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 570 (SC) that though equitable considerations are irrelevant in interpreting tax laws, same are to be interpreted reasonably and in consonance with justice. This in fact stands oft- repeated by apex court, as in CIT vs. Gotla [1985] 156 ITR 323 (SC), holding as: Though equity and taxation are often strangers, attempts should be made that these do not remain always so and if construction results in equity rather than in injustice, then such construction should be preferred to literal construction. Decision 5. In present case there is, as apparent, no functional relationship or dependence between buildings completed and that not completed (by specified date 31.3.2008), which are thus independent of each other. This is as Revenue s only objection is that one of eight buildings comprising assessee s otherwise eligible housing project u s. 80-IB(10), i.e., Krishna Complex , is not complete by that date; assessee holding completion certificates (by that date) for other seven buildings of project. We, accordingly, see no reason as to why deduction u s.80-IB(10) cannot be allowed on part that is completed by 31.3.2008. In our view, therefore, assessee would be entitled to deduction u s.80-IB(10) on 19 ITA No. 6754 Mum 2014 (A.Y. 2008-09) ITO vs. Shiv Om Universal building s comprising housing project for which it stands issued completion certificate by 31 3 2008. Our decision, for reasons stated at paras 3.1 through 4 of this order, cannot be regarded as in breach of cited decisions by Hon ble jurisdictional High Court and, besides, is also in agreement with that by tribunal in assessee s case for A.Y. 2009-10. We decide accordingly. 6. In result, Revenue s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on September 22, 2016 Sd - Sd - (Pawan Singh) (Sanjay Arora) Judicial Member Accountant Member Mumbai; Dated : 22.09.2016 Roshani, Sr. PS Copy of Order forwarded to : 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. ( ) CIT(A) 4. CIT - concerned 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard File BY ORDER, (Dy. Asstt. Registrar) , ITAT, Mumbai Income-tax Officer, Ward 2(4), Mumbai v. Shiv Om Universal