2012 (6) TMI 859 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves the deduction claim u/s 80IB (10) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for a housing project, rejection of claim based on various grounds, and lack of documentary evidence to substantiate payments to certain persons.

Deduction u/s 80IB (10) Claim:
The appeal was filed by the revenue against the order allowing the deduction claim u/s 80IB (10) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for a housing project. The revenue contended that the claim was rejected by the Assessing Officer due to the buildup area of shops exceeding the limit, the assessee being a contractor not a builder, and selling Transferable Development Rights (TDR) which were movable assets not related to housing projects. However, the Tribunal found that the issue was already decided in favor of the assessee in a previous case, where it was established that the project approval predated the relevant amendment, allowing the deduction. The Tribunal also noted that the TDR received was solely for the residential portion of the project, and there was no appreciation in value before its sale, thus confirming the eligibility for the deduction.

Lack of Documentary Evidence:
The revenue raised concerns about the lack of documentary evidence to justify and substantiate payments to certain persons. However, the Tribunal did not find merit in this objection as it was not raised during the assessment or in the remand report. The Tribunal emphasized that since the assessee did not claim any benefit under the relevant proviso, the issue of the notified SRA scheme did not arise. Additionally, it was established that the project approval predated the relevant amendment, allowing for the deduction u/s 80IB (10) as per the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Brahma Associates. The Tribunal concluded that there was no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) based on the facts and circumstances of the case.

Conclusion:
Respecting the precedent set by the ITAT in the earlier years for the same assessee, the Tribunal dismissed the grounds raised by the revenue and upheld the order allowing the deduction claim u/s 80IB (10) for the housing project. Consequently, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed, and the order was pronounced on June 8, 2012.