9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (7) TMI 291 - HC - Income TaxDeduction u/s 80-IB(10) - housing project - Deduction on account of increased profit due to disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - Held that - Even if a certain expenditure which was incurred by the assessee for the purpose of developing housing project was not allowable by virtue of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, since the assessee had not deducted the tax at source as required under law, it cannot be denied that such disallowance would ultimately go to increase the assessee's profit from the business of developing housing project. Whatever be the ultimate profit of the assessee as computed even after making disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, would qualify for deduction as provided under the law - Decided in favour of Assessee.
Issues:
1. Deduction under section 80-IB(10) of the Income-tax Act. 2. Disallowance as deduction under section 80-IB(10) of the Act. 3. Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act. Issue 1: Deduction under section 80-IB(10) of the Income-tax Act: The case involved the rejection of the assessee's claim under section 80-IB(10) of the Income-tax Act due to not owning the premises on which the housing project was developed. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the claim, leading the Revenue to appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the claim based on a previous decision in the case of Shakti Developers. The High Court considered the Tribunal's decision in the case of CIT v. Radhe Developers, where it was observed that the assessee had full responsibility for project execution, including land development, irrespective of land ownership. The High Court concluded that the ownership of land was not consequential, and the assessee's claim was valid under section 80-IB(10) of the Act. Issue 2: Disallowance as deduction under section 80-IB(10) of the Act: The Assessing Officer disallowed an expenditure under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for failure to deduct tax at source on transportation charges. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) confirmed the disallowance, prompting the assessee to appeal to the Tribunal. The assessee argued that the disallowance should qualify for deduction under section 80-IB(10) of the Act, citing it as the first year of applicability and ignorance as reasons for non-deduction. The Tribunal accepted the alternative contention and directed the Assessing Officer to grant the deduction. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the disallowance would increase the assessee's profit from the housing project business, making it eligible for deduction under the law. Issue 3: Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act: The High Court addressed the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, emphasizing that even if an expenditure was disallowed due to non-deduction of tax at source, the increased profit from such disallowance would still qualify for deduction under the law. The Court concluded that no error existed in the Tribunal's decision, dismissing the tax appeal. In summary, the High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the Tribunal's judgment, upholding the assessee's claim under section 80-IB(10) of the Income-tax Act and allowing the disallowance as deduction under the same section. The Court emphasized the significance of project execution responsibility over land ownership and clarified that disallowances under section 40(a)(ia) could still lead to increased profits eligible for deduction under the law.
|
