Skip to main content

Land owner can claim Section 80-IB(10) despite no expense on Housing Project

 In the Commissioner of Income Tax, Business Ward III(1), Chennai. vs M/s.Astoria Leathers, appeal was filed by the Revenue Dept. against the order of the Tribunal.

The substantial question of law before the High Court was whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct and justified in directing the Assessing Officer to allow deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to assessee land owner when it had not incurred any expenses towards development or construction of the housing project ?

The High Court o answer the substantial question of law, we need not labour much, as an identical question was considered and decided by a Division Bench of this Court, to which one of us (TSSJ) was a party, in TCA.No.177 of 2018 vide judgment dated 30.1.2019 [M/s.Bashyam Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT]. In fact, the nature of transaction is also the same. After taking into consideration the decisions of this Court in the cases of (i) CIT Vs. Sanghvi & Doshi Enterprise [reported in (2013) 29 Taxman.com 386], (ii) ITO Vs. Doshi Enterprise [reported in (2013) 55 Taxmann.com 500], (iii) CIT Vs. Ceebros Property Development (P.) Ltd. [reported in (2014) 41 Taxmann.com 263], the decisions of the High Court of Gujarat in the cases of (i) CIT vs. Radhe Developers [reported in (2012) 17 Taxmann.com 156], (ii) CIT vs. Moon Star Developers [reported in (2014) 88 CCH 0211] and (iii) CIT vs. Prathama Developers [reported in (2013) 32 Taxmann.com 336], the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Cajetano Mario Pereira [reported in (2014) 88 CCH 0152] and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Veena Developers [reported in (2015) 93 CCH 0184 ISCC], the substantial questions of law framed therein were answered to the following effect that a plain reading of Section 80IB(10) of the Act evidently makes it clear that deduction is available in a case where an undertaking develops and builds a housing project. The Section clearly draws the distinction between 'developing' and 'building'. In the preceding paragraphs, we have noted the factual position as could be culled out from the joint venture agreement, which clearly shows that the assessee is the developer and  is the builder and mutual rights and obligations are inextricably linked with each other and undoubtedly, the project is a housing project thereby, the assessee would be entitled to claim deduction under Section 80IB (10) of the Act. Therefore, in a case of development, the developer is also entitled to claim deduction and ownership is not the criteria.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more