2017 (1) TMI 819 - HC - Income Tax

Appeal admitted on iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the benefit of Section 80IB(10) of the Act can be made available to the assessee on a prorata basis? (iv) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in holding that assessee shall be entitled to deduction under Section 80IB(10) even though assessee has not completed construction of two offices in wing B1?

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Interpretation of Section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Eligibility for deduction under Section 80IB(10) for specific building numbers.
3. Submission of audit report along with the return of income.
4. Inclusion of balcony, terrace, and garden areas in the built-up area.
5. Entitlement to deduction under Section 80IB(10) for amenities regularized after construction.
6. Compliance with sanctioned plan for construction of housing projects.

Analysis:
1. The first issue relates to the interpretation of Section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal held that the project exceeding the commercial area limit of 2000 sq. ft. but approved before 1.4.2005 is eligible for the deduction. This interpretation was based on a previous decision of the Apex Court, concluding the issue against the Revenue.

2. The second issue concerns the eligibility for deduction under Section 80IB(10) for specific building numbers. The Tribunal clarified that the benefit was granted for building numbers A4 to A8, not A1 to A3. As the question raised by the Revenue did not align with the Tribunal's decision, it was not entertained.

3. Regarding the submission of the audit report, the Tribunal accepted the report submitted during the assessment proceedings, even though it was not filed with the return of income. This decision was supported by a previous court ruling, leading to the conclusion that the question did not raise any substantial legal issue.

4. The issue of including balcony, terrace, and garden areas in the built-up area for projects sanctioned before 1.4.2005 was addressed by the Tribunal. It held that such areas are not part of the built-up area. This decision was in line with a previous court judgment, leading to the rejection of the question raised.

5. The entitlement to deduction under Section 80IB(10) for amenities regularized after construction was discussed. The Tribunal allowed the deduction, citing a similar case where excess construction was regularized later. As the Revenue failed to provide reasons to challenge this decision, the question was not entertained.

6. Lastly, the issue of compliance with the sanctioned plan for construction of housing projects was raised. The Tribunal found no discussion on this issue in the impugned order and concluded that the proposed question did not arise from the Tribunal's decision, leading to its rejection.

In conclusion, the High Court admitted the appeals on substantial questions related to prorata basis entitlement and deduction for incomplete construction. The Court directed the Registry to inform the Tribunal about the order for further proceedings and consolidation with other connected appeals.