2016 (7) TMI 446 - AT - Income Tax

Eligibility of deduction u/s.80IB - Held that - The undertaking qualifying for deduction u/s.80IB of the Act is an undertaking developing and building housing projects and the deduction is in respect of profits and gains derived from such housing project, satisfying the conditions stipulated in the clause therein. Thus, within a composite housing project, where there are eligible and ineligible units, assessee can claim deduction in respect of eligible units in the project and even within the block, assessee is entitled to claim proportionate relief in the units satisfying the extent of built-up area. CIT(A) rightly held that assessee was eligible for deduction u/s.80IB of the Act for Tower T1 amounting to ₹ 1,44,91,313/- being eligible profit u/s.80IB of the Act. For the balance amount of deduction claimed u/s.80IB i.e. ₹ 1,70,09,616/- (Rs.3,15,00,929/- minus ₹ 1,44,91,313/-) assessee has stated that disallowance in respect of Towers T2 and T3 of Kapil Malhar Intelligent Home would be revenue neutral as regular tax liability is less than tax paid on the book profit. Assessee has not filed any specific submission or details for Tower T2 and T3 regarding the claim made for 80IB of the Act. Since the eligible deduction would be tax neutral the adjudication of balance amount becomes mere academic in nature and same was not directed. Above reasoned finding of CIT(A) needs no interference from our side, whereby CIT(A) has allowed the claim of assessee as discussed above. Same is upheld.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal by Revenue against CIT(A) order for A.Y. 2010-11.
2. Revenue's appeal on deduction u/s 80IB(10) for towers T1 to T3.
3. Assessee's Cross Objection on deduction u/s 80IB(10) for towers T2 and T3.
4. Disallowance of deduction by Assessing Officer for exceeding unit area.
5. Completion of project within stipulated time for claiming deduction.
6. CIT(A) granting relief to assessee on deduction u/s 80IB(10).
7. Proportionate basis deduction under section 80IB(10) for eligible units.

Analysis:
1. The Revenue filed an appeal challenging the CIT(A) order for A.Y. 2010-11, specifically on the deduction u/s 80IB(10) for towers T1 to T3. The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in allowing the deduction based on High Court decisions not accepted by the department and raised concerns regarding the completion of the entire project within the stipulated time period of four years as required by section 80IB(10).
2. The Assessee filed a Cross Objection regarding the deduction u/s 80IB(10) for towers T2 and T3. The CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee, considering the eligible profit u/s 80IB(10) for Tower T1 and allowing proportionate relief for eligible units within the project. The CIT(A) relied on various judicial decisions to support the assessee's claim for deduction.
3. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee due to certain units exceeding the stipulated maximum area of 1,500 sq.ft. The Assessing Officer emphasized that the deduction under section 80IB(10) cannot be given on a proportionate basis and must adhere to the conditions set forth in the provision.
4. The completion of the project within the prescribed time frame was a crucial factor in claiming the deduction u/s 80IB(10). The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had only completed phase I of the project and failed to complete phase II within the stipulated four-year period, leading to the disallowance of the claimed amount.
5. The CIT(A) analyzed the case in detail, considering the provisions of section 80IB(10) and relevant judicial precedents. The CIT(A) upheld the claim of the assessee for deduction u/s 80IB(10) for Tower T1 and allowed proportionate relief for eligible units within the project, based on the interpretation of the law and previous court decisions.
6. The decision of the CIT(A) was supported by the Authorized Representative, while the Revenue opposed it, arguing that the relief granted was not justified. However, after reviewing the submissions and evidence, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, allowing the deduction for the eligible units in Tower T1 and dismissing the appeal of the Revenue.
7. The Tribunal dismissed the issues raised in the Cross Objection by the assessee as not pressed. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to grant relief to the assessee on the deduction u/s 80IB(10) for Tower T1 and proportionate relief for eligible units within the project, based on the interpretation of the law and relevant judicial decisions.