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

Michigan House Approves 'Right-to-Work' Bill

Amid raucous protests, the Republican-led Michigan House approved a contentious right-to-work bill on  Dec 11 limiting unions' strength in the state where the (Union for American Auto Workers)  UAW was born. The chamber passed a measure dealing with public-sector workers 58-51 as protesters shouted "shame on you" from the gallery and huge crowds of union backers massed in the state Capitol halls and on the grounds. Backers said a right-to-work law would bring more jobs to Michigan and give workers freedom. Critics said it would drive down wages and benefits. The right-to-work movement has been growing in the country since Wisconsin fought a similar battle with unions over two years ago. Michigan would become the 24th state to enact right-to-work provisions, and passage of the legislation would deal a stunning blow to the power of organized labor in the United States. Wisconsin Republicans in 2011 passed laws severely restricting the power of public s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power to re-assess by AO and disclosure of material facts

In AVTEC Limited v. DCIT, the division of the Delhi High Court held that AO is bound to look at the litigation history of the assessee and cannot expect the assessee to inform him.  In the instant case, the Petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of automobiles, power trains and power shift transmissions along with their components, approached the High Court challenging the re-assessment order passed against them. For the year 2006-07, the Petitioner entered into a Business Transfer Agreement with Hindustan Motors Ltd, as per which, the Petitioner took over the business from HML.  While filing income tax return for the said year, the petitioner claimed the expenses incurred in respect of professional and legal charges for the purpose of taking over of the business from HML as capital expenses and claimed depreciation. Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/assessing-officer-bound-look-litigation-history-assessee-delhi-hc-read-order/8087/
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