9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (1) TMI 552 - AT - Income TaxDeduction U/s.80IB(10) disallowed - Held that - The learned A.O. has given specific finding in the assessment order that the claim of the appellant is disallowed on non-fulfillment of conditions U/s.80IB(10)(f)(iii) of the I.T.Act 1961 which is against the facts and materials available on record and principle of Board s Circular, the claim of the appellant be allowed. That the order passed by learned A.O. in rejecting the claim of the appellant U/s.80IB(10) and confirmed by CIT(A) is bad in law, illegal; void and not in accordance with the provisions of the I.T.Act 1961.That the learned A.O. himself has admitted that the appellant could not furnish exact quantum amount of particular unit and profit of the whole project was only worked out which is against the materials available on record and the appellant had submitted working to the learned A.O. along with letter dated 10.12.2013 and therefore finding given by learned A.O. is perverse and alternative claim of proportionate be allowed. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act. 2. Applicability of amendments to Section 80IB(10)(e) and (f) with effect from 1.4.2010. 3. Pro-rata disallowance of deduction for alleged violation of conditions for one unit. 4. Consideration of various judicial decisions and Board's Circular dated 3.6.2010. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance of Deduction under Section 80IB(10): The primary issue in both appeals was whether the Assessee was rightfully disallowed the claim for deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act by the CIT(A). The Assessee contended that all conditions laid down in Section 80IB(10) were fulfilled except for the condition under Section 80IB(10)(f)(iii), which the AO claimed was violated. The AO disallowed the deduction on the grounds that two residential units were allotted to the same individual, which was against the provisions of Section 80IB(10)(f). The Assessee argued that the units were not allotted to a single individual but to the individual and his mother, and that the relevant provision came into effect only after the allotment. 2. Applicability of Amendments to Section 80IB(10)(e) and (f): The amendments to Section 80IB(10)(e) and (f) were introduced by the Finance (No.2) Act 2009 and became effective from 1.4.2010. The Assessee argued that the bookings and allotments of the residential units were made before the amendments came into force. The Tribunal noted that the payments for the units were made before the amendments became effective, as evidenced by agreements and cheques dated before 1.4.2010. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the authorities below were not justified in rejecting the claim of deduction based on a provision that came into force after the allotment of the residential units. 3. Pro-rata Disallowance of Deduction: The Assessee alternatively argued that if there was any violation of the conditions for one unit, the disallowance should be limited to the profit earned from that specific unit and not the entire project. The Tribunal referred to various judicial decisions supporting the pro-rata disallowance approach. However, since the Tribunal found that the amendments were not applicable to the Assessee's case, it did not need to delve deeper into the pro-rata disallowance argument. 4. Consideration of Judicial Decisions and Board's Circular: The Assessee cited several decisions from High Courts and Tribunals, which were not considered by the CIT(A). The Tribunal emphasized the importance of considering relevant judicial decisions and the Board's Circular dated 3.6.2010, which explained the purpose of the amendments. The Tribunal noted that the authorities below had misinterpreted and misapplied the provisions and the purpose of the amendments. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed both appeals of the Assessee, directing the AO to allow the deduction claimed under Section 80IB(10) and delete the disallowance made. The Tribunal concluded that the authorities below were not justified in rejecting the claim based on a provision that came into force after the allotment of the residential units. The Tribunal also emphasized the need for a purposive interpretation of the provisions of the Act while considering claims for exemption from tax.
|
