2016 (7) TMI 192 - HC - Income Tax

Entitlment to deduction u/s. 80IB (10) - ITAT allowed the claim - Held that - In case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Voora Property Develop P. Ltd.(2015 (3) TMI 456 - MADRAS HIGH COURT ) held and observed that when the project fulfilled the criteria for being approved as a housing project, the deduction under Section 80IB(10) could not be denied on the ground that the assessee had obtained a separate plan permits for the six blocks. In this case also, the assessee had claimed deduction on the basis of composite development of housing project under six different blocks, the combined area of which exceeded one acre. - Decided against revenue Belated deposit of tds - disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - ITAT delted the addition - Held that - The assessee having deducted tax at source, had deposited such tax with the Revenue not by 31.03.2006, as was required, but on 31.05.2006, which was before filing of the return. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal followed the decision of the Gujarat High Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad IV vs. Omprakash R. Chaudhary 2015 (2) TMI 150 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT , in which, it was held that the amendment made to Section 40 (a) (ia) by the Finance Act of 2010 granting additional time for depositing the TDS upto the due date of filing of the return would apply with retrospective effect from the date of the insertion of Section 40(a)(ia) i.e. from 01.04.2005. Since the assessee had deposited the tax before the due date of filing of the return, the Tribunal granted the benefit correctly.- Decided against revenue

Summary

Issues:
1. Entitlement to deduction u/s. 80IB (10) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Deletion of addition made under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act.

Entitlement to deduction u/s. 80IB (10) of the Income Tax Act:
The Revenue appealed against the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's judgment regarding the assessee's entitlement to deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act. The primary issue was whether the assessee could claim the deduction despite treating different blocks of apartments on separate pieces of land as one single project. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction based on multiple development agreements and separate building use permissions. However, the Tribunal, citing decisions from Madras and Bombay High Courts, held that the assessee had developed one composite housing project on a total land area exceeding one acre, thus allowing the deduction. The Revenue argued that the Tribunal erred in granting the benefit as the starting and completion dates for the projects were different, which are crucial under Section 80IB(10). Nonetheless, the High Court, following the precedent set by the two High Courts, upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the legislative intent to promote housing for lower and middle-income groups.

Deletion of addition made under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act:
The second issue involved the addition of a certain amount under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, which was later deleted by the Tribunal. The assessee had deposited the tax deducted at source with the Revenue after the prescribed due date. However, the Tribunal relied on a Gujarat High Court decision, stating that an amendment allowing additional time for TDS depositing would apply retrospectively from 01.04.2005. As the assessee had deposited the tax before the due date of filing the return, the Tribunal granted the benefit, leading to the dismissal of the tax appeal.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision on both issues, affirming the assessee's entitlement to deduction u/s. 80IB(10) and the deletion of the addition made under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act.