9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (11) TMI 920 - AT - Income TaxDeduction u/s 80IB(10) - no compliance of the requirement of the provision of the Act in some flats, the built up area was more than the stipulated condition of 1,000 sq. ft. - Held that - Whether the assessee can be held liable for extension of area in the alleged flats after the sale to the respective purchasers. The obvious reply is NO because the project of the assessee was completed on 28/03/2008 after examining the area of each flat of the project by the competent authority and only then the completion certificate was issued to the assessee. The case of the assessee is fortified by the fact that the assessee started construction on 15/04/2002 and during second survey carried out in 2006, everything was found in order. It can be said the basic structure of the flats must have been completed or at least the base should have been completed above plinth area, on which the further construction would have been made. There is no allegation by the survey team (during first survey in 2006) that the assessee was not constructing as per the approved plan. The completion certificate was issued by the competent authority after examining whether the assessee has fulfilled the conditions stipulated in the Act and also whether construction has been completed as per the sanctioned plan dated 15/04/2002. If, at the later stage, the allottees/occupants of the flats makes any addition, the assessee cannot be held liable for their omissions/acts, if any. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Allowing deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act when some flats exceeded the stipulated area of 1,000 sq. ft. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Allowing Deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Act Arguments by the Revenue: The Revenue contended that the built-up area of some flats exceeded 1,000 sq. ft., which was discovered during a survey conducted by the Department. The Revenue argued that this non-compliance should disqualify the assessee from claiming the deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Act. Arguments by the Assessee: The assessee defended the claim by stating that the project was completed on 28/03/2008, and a completion/occupancy certificate was issued by the competent authority. The assessee argued that any subsequent merger of flats by occupants was beyond their control and should not affect the eligibility for the deduction. The assessee cited several judicial precedents, including *Haware Construction Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO*, *Emgeen Holdings Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT*, and *DCIT vs Magarpatta Township Development & Construction Company*, to support their position. Tribunal's Analysis and Conclusion: The Tribunal referred to multiple judicial precedents to analyze the issue comprehensively: - CIT vs Vandana Properties: The Bombay High Court observed that the term 'housing project' should be construed as commonly understood, and the construction of even one building with several residential units qualifies as a 'housing project' under Section 80IB(10) of the Act. - DCIT vs Aditya Developers: The Tribunal held that the concept of a housing project does not necessitate a group of buildings; even a single building can qualify if it meets the conditions stipulated in Section 80IB(10). - Rahul Construction Co. vs ITO: The Tribunal emphasized the importance of verifying the eligibility of the benefit claimed under Section 80IB(10) based on the date of approval and the completion of the project within the prescribed time limit. - Mudhit Madanlal Gupta vs ACIT: The Tribunal ruled that the deduction under Section 80IB(10) should not be denied merely because some flats were later combined by purchasers. The independent units should be treated as separate housing projects for the purpose of the deduction. - Brigade Enterprises (P) Ltd. vs Dy.CIT: The Tribunal held that relief should be given pro rata for eligible units within a larger project, and the deduction should not be denied by treating the entire project as a single unit. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee could not be held liable for any modifications made by the purchasers after the sale of the flats. The completion certificate issued by the competent authority confirmed that the project was completed as per the approved plan. Therefore, the assessee fulfilled the conditions stipulated in Section 80IB(10) at the time of completion. Final Judgment: The Tribunal found no infirmity in the conclusion drawn by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and affirmed the decision to allow the deduction under Section 80IB(10). The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed. Pronouncement: The Order was pronounced in the open court on 06/10/2015 in the presence of representatives from both sides.
|
