1 itxa4975-10++ agk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.4975 OF 2010 AND INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.4976 OF 2010 AND INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.4977 OF 2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Central - I, Mumbai ..Appellant. Versus Purvankara Projects Limited ..Respondent. Mr.Suresh Kumar for the appellant. Mr.Rajeev Waglay i/by Mr.B.G. Tangsali for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. Devadhar & A.A. Sayed, JJ. DATE : 25th July, 2011. P.C. : 1. The questions of law raised by the Revenue in this appeal reads thus : A) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was right in holding that the assessee is entitled for deduction under Section 80IB in respect of car parking area as the same does not form part of residential unit eligible for deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Act ? B) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled for deduction under Section 80IB in respect of car parking area ignoring the fact that the assessee had itself made declaration resulting into reduced claim of deduction under 2 itxa4975-10++ Section 80IB relating to the car parking area during the course of survey operation ? 2. The finding of fact recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and approved by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is that in the present case, it is not in dispute that the assessee is entitled to 80IB deduction. The only dispute is whether the assessee is entitled to the deduction in respect of the amount received towards car parking space. The finding of fact recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and approved by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is that the car parking space forms part and parcel of the housing project, without which even approval for the housing project could not have been obtained from the competent authority. Therefore, the decision of the Tribunal in holding that the assessee is entitled to Section 80IB deduction in respect of housing project inclusive of the amount received on account of car parking cannot be faulted. 3. In this view of the matter, we see no merit in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. (A.A. Sayed, J.) (J.P. Devadhar, J.)