2014 (2) TMI 1387 - AT - Income Tax

Deduction u/s 80IB(10) denied - project was not a housing project as envisaged under section 80-IB(10) - Whether project was not a housing project as envisaged under section 80-IB(10)? - assessee had claimed himself to be developer of a plot measuring 14.75 acres alongwtih all basic amenities like roads, parks, street lights, children play area etc - HELD THAT - An identical claim of deduction had been disallowed by the Assessing Officer in assessment year 2009-10 and the tribunal has confirmed similar findings of the CIT(A) deleting the same. 2013 (11) TMI 1745 - ITAT CHENNAI as transpires that in preceding as well as the impugned assessment year, the Assessing Officer had made disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB(10) qua the very project Chettinadd Enclave sought to have been developed by the assessee on similar analogy of reasons (supra). We find from the tribunal s order that similar grounds were raised wherein issue of deduction stands decided in favour of the assessee. In these circumstances, by following the order of the tribunal in assessee s own case for the very project in the nature of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act , we see no reason to adopt a different view in the impugned assessment year. Consequently, the CIT(A) s findings are affirmed. - Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB(10) for assessment year 2010-11.

Analysis:
The Revenue filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals-V) Chennai, contesting the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB(10) amounting to Rs. 19,50,52,889 for the assessment year 2010-11. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim on the grounds that the assessee, a civil contractor and promoter, did not fulfill the basic requirements under the relevant statutory provision. The Assessing Officer argued that the built-up area exceeded the statutory limit, the project completion was delayed, and the assessee's role was limited to that of a works contractor, not a developer. The CIT(A) accepted the assessee's contentions, leading to the Revenue's appeal.

In the appeal, the Revenue raised several grounds challenging the CIT(A)'s decision. They argued that balconies should be considered part of the built-up area, the detailed photographs of housing units were not properly considered, and the exclusive access to balconies by buyers was highlighted. The Revenue also contended that the balcony could be used for multiple purposes, and the built-up area definition under Sec. 80IB(10) should include projections and balconies. They further argued about the approval dates, completion timeframes, and land area of the housing project.

During the hearing, the Revenue reiterated its stance, while the assessee pointed out a similar disallowance in the previous assessment year, which was overturned by the tribunal. The Revenue failed to provide any distinguishing factors. The tribunal noted that similar grounds were raised in the previous year, and the deduction issue was decided in favor of the assessee. Consequently, the tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s findings based on the previous tribunal's order, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB(10) for the assessment year 2010-11.