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

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...
Post a Comment
Read more

CBI has no jurisdiction to probe affairs of medical college:HC

The Madras High Court has quashed charges against administrators of a medical college and dismissed CBI's petitions opposing discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, saying the investigation agency, or any other external agency for that matter, has no jurisdiction to probe the affairs of a medical college. Quashing the charges against the administrators of a medical college and dismissing CBI's petitions opposing the discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, Justice Aruna Jagadeesan said "contravention of rules and regulations may be an offence against the statute but is not a crime. There is no room or jurisdiction for any external agency to investigate the affairs of any medical institution coming within the purview of the Medical Council of India." In identical set of orders, all delivered on August 6, Justice Jagadeesan said "the shortfall in faculties and submissions of fake/forged documents would only disentitle the institution...
Post a Comment
Read more