9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (4) TMI 425 - AT - Income TaxClaim deduction u/s.80IB(10) - Held that - Clause (d) inserted to section 80IB(10) with effect from April 1, 2005, is prospective and not retrospective and hence could not be applied for the period prior to April 1, 2005. Since deduction u/s.80IB(10) were on the profits derived from the housing projects approved by the local authority as a whole, the Tribunal was not justified in restricting the section 80IB(10) deduction only to a part of the project. However, in the present case, since the assessee had accepted the decision of the Tribunal in allowing section 80IB(10) deduction to a part of the project, the findings of the Tribunal in that behalf could not be disturbed. Since the AO following the order for preceding assessment years has denied the claim of deduction u/s.80IB(10) and since the CIT(A) following the order of the Tribunal in assessee s own case for the preceding assessment years have allowed the claim of deduction u/s.80IB(10) and since the jurisdictional High Court has also decided the issue in favour of the assessee in assessee s own case for A.Y. 2003-04, therefore, in absence of any contrary material brought to our notice the order of the CIT(A) has to be upheld. Merely because the revenue has filed an SLP before the Hon ble Apex Court, the same cannot be a basis to take a contrary view than the view taken by the jurisdictional High Court in absence of any contrary material - Decided in favour of assessee
Issues:
1. Eligibility of the assessee for deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the I.T. Act. 2. Interpretation of the conditions for claiming deduction u/s. 80IB(10). 3. Applicability of the amended provisions of section 80IB(10)(d). 4. Effect of the decision of the jurisdictional High Court on the claim of deduction. Eligibility for Deduction u/s. 80IB(10): The case involved an AOP engaged in real estate business claiming deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the I.T. Act for a project named "Brahma Estate." The AO initially denied the deduction due to the project not meeting certain conditions. However, the assessee contended that the project was eligible based on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court. The CIT(A) allowed the claim based on previous Tribunal decisions. The Revenue challenged this, arguing that the project was not approved as a housing project and had more than 20% commercial area. The assessee relied on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in their favor for A.Y. 2003-04, emphasizing their entitlement to the deduction. Interpretation of Conditions for Deduction u/s. 80IB(10): The AO highlighted the conditions for claiming deduction u/s. 80IB(10), including project completion before 31-03-2003, approval by the local authority, and other specific requirements. The AO reasoned that since the project was not completed before the specified date and had a significant commercial area, the assessee was not entitled to the deduction. The CIT(A) disagreed, following Tribunal decisions for preceding years and allowing the claim. Applicability of Amended Provisions of Section 80IB(10)(d): The Revenue raised concerns regarding the amended provisions of section 80IB(10)(d) and their applicability to the case for A.Y. 2010-11. They argued that the amended provisions should be considered, but the CIT(A) held that they were not applicable based on the commencement certificate date. The Tribunal noted that the Hon'ble High Court had decided against the Revenue on similar issues in previous years, and thus upheld the CIT(A)'s decision. Effect of Jurisdictional High Court's Decision: The Tribunal considered the jurisdictional High Court's decision in the assessee's favor for A.Y. 2003-04, which had dismissed the Revenue's appeal. Despite the Revenue filing an SLP before the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, citing the absence of contrary material to warrant a different view. The Tribunal emphasized that the High Court's decision was binding in the absence of new evidence, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the assessee's claim for deduction u/s. 80IB(10) based on the jurisdictional High Court's favorable ruling and previous Tribunal decisions.
|
