9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (5) TMI 1441 - AT - Income TaxDeduction u/s 80IB - two flats were sold to the same persons, namely, Smt. Latha Ramachandran and Shri K. Ramachandran - Held that - As far as the sale of residential unit to Smt. Latha Ramachandran and Shri K. Ramachandran was concerned, the issue was settled by Madras High Court and now pending before Apex Court. Unless the judgment of Madras High Court was reversed by the Apex Court, there cannot be any reason for the Revenue to reopen the issue once again. Therefore, this Tribunal do not find any justification in disallowing the claim of the assessee merely because two flats were sold to Smt. Latha Ramachandran and Shri K. Ramachandran. For flats exceeding 1500 sq.ft., a co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal found that flat Nos.403 & 404, in fact, exceeded 1500 sq.ft. The language employed in Section 80- IB(10)(c) of the Act does not warrant deduction claim altogether if some of the units exceed the specific dimensions. The Tribunal in the earlier assessment year found that consequent disallowance has to be only on proportionate basis. This Tribunal placed its reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in Arun Excello Foundations (P) Ltd. (2012 (12) TMI 415 - MADRAS HIGH COURT). No reason to confirm the orders of the lower authorities and accordingly, the same are set aside.
Issues:
1. Deduction under Section 80-IB(10) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for housing project. 2. Interpretation of amendment to Section 80-IB(10) regarding flat size and sale. 3. Application of judgment by Madras High Court and pending appeal before the Apex Court. 4. Claim under Section 80-IB(10)(c) of the Act for selling multiple residential units. 5. Disallowance of deduction due to flat size exceeding 1500 sq.ft. Analysis: 1. The appeals by the Revenue challenged the CIT(Appeals) orders for assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13 regarding deduction under Section 80-IB(10) for a housing project. The issue arose from the sale of two flats exceeding 1500 sq.ft. to the same individuals. The CIT(Appeals) allowed the deduction, stating that the amendment to Section 80-IB(10) could not be applied retrospectively. The Revenue's appeal to the High Court was unsuccessful, with the High Court upholding the Tribunal's decision for the assessment year 2010-11. The Tribunal reiterated that the amendment was prospective, and the claim was allowed proportionately. 2. The Ld. counsel argued that the Revenue's contention of the pending appeal before the Apex Court should not prevent following the High Court's judgment. The Tribunal found that unless the High Court's decision was overturned by the Apex Court, there was no basis for the Revenue to reopen the issue. The Tribunal upheld the previous decision allowing the deduction for the sale of residential units exceeding the specified area to the same buyers. 3. Regarding the flats exceeding 1500 sq.ft., the Tribunal noted that the previous decision allowed deduction on a proportionate basis for units exceeding the specified area. Citing the judgment of the Madras High Court in a similar case, the Tribunal set aside the lower authorities' orders, dismissing both the Revenue's appeals and the cross-objections by the assessee. 4. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed both the Revenue's appeals and the cross-objections by the assessee, maintaining the allowance of deduction under Section 80-IB(10) for the housing project despite the flats' sizes and sales to the same individuals. The judgment emphasized the prospective application of the amendment and the need for proportionate disallowance in such cases.
|
