P.K. Bansal, Accountant Member. - In all these appeals filed by the revenue against the respective orders of the CIT(A), the common grounds are as under :

"1.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the deduction under section 80-IB(10) to the assessee, who was not granted approval by the local authority to carry on the business of an undertaking developing and building housing projects, in contravention of a plain reading of section 80-IB(10), read with section 80-IB(1), Explanation to section 80-IB(10) and rule 18BBB.

2.The ld. CIT(A) failed to make a combined reading of section 80-IB(1), which is the substantive provision, and section 80-IB(10), which is a machinery provision, postulating complete identity between the assessee as referred to in section 80-IB(1), and the undertaking developing and building housing projects approved by the local authority as referred to in section 80-IB(10), not permitting such splitting between the assessee and the person who is granted approval by the local authority for developing and building housing projects, as presumed by the CIT(A).

3.The ld. CIT(A) failed to abide by the scheme of section 80-IB based on complete identity between the assessee as referred to in section 80-IB(1), on the one hand, and the entity fulfilling the conditions laid down in sections 80-IB(3), 80-IB(9), 80-IB(11) and 80-IB(11AA), besides section 80-IB(10), on the other.

4.The ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the land being integral part of any housing project, the assessee, without owning the land component, could not pass on full title over dwelling units to the customers so as to derive profits from developing and building housing projects and this integration is further fortified by the requirement of approval by the local authority as well as grant of completion certificate by the local authority under clause (ii) of the Explanation below section 80-IB(10), both of which are granted to the landowner, thus, treating him alone as running the undertaking from the beginning to the end.

5.The ld. CIT(A) erred in dispensing with the ownership of land intrinsically linked with the approval by the local authority, also in disregard of section 80-IB(10)(b) providing for the condition of minimum size of the plot of land, which can be fulfilled only by the landowner and the person getting approval from the local authority.

6.The ld. CIT(A) erred in making assumption regarding passing on of the benefit of section 80-IB(10) by the landowner getting approval from the local authority for developing and building of housing projects to the person with whom he enters into agreement for execution of such projects, without there being any provision in section 80-IB for such passing on, as contained in section 80HHC(1A)."

2. The brief facts which we are taking from the file of M/s. Shakti Corporation are that the assessee claimed deduction under section 80-IB(10), which was disallowed by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the assessee was not the owner of the property and the permission was not granted in assessee’s name and the approval by the Vadodara Municipal Corporation was in the name of the original landowners and not in the name of the assessee. The original landowners, according to the Assessing Officer, availed of the services for development and construction of the projects and, therefore, the fundamental condition that the approval must be accorded in the assessee’s name, was not satisfied.

3. When the matter went before the CIT(A), the CIT(A), following the decision of the Tribunal Ahmedabad Bench in the case of Radhe Develop- ers v. ITO [2008] 23 SOT 420 took the view that for the purpose of claiming deduction under section 80-IB(10) of the Act, it is not necessary for the assessee to own the land. Since such condition is not mentioned in the section, it would not be correct to deny deduction on this ground. The CIT(A) was of the view that the facts and