9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 1391 - AT - Income TaxClaim for deduction under section 80IB - deduction was claimed by the assessee in respect of completed 3 blocks - lower authorities rejected the assessee s claim on the ground that the entire housing project had not completed by the assessee within the stipulated period - Held that - Even a single building consisting of a number of residential units could be considered to be a housing project by itself eligible for deduction under section 80IB(10). It was held that even though the assessee had not completed the construction of all blocks of housing project, that would not deprive the assessee from availing deduction under section 80IB(10) in respect of the completed blocks on standalone basis. Respectfully following the said decision of coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case Vertex Homes Pvt. Ltd. (2015 (9) TMI 549 - ITAT HYDERABAD), we uphold the impugned order of the Ld. CIT (A) allowing the claim of the assessee for deduction under section 80IB subject to the verification by the AO that the five phases of the project completed by the assessee are eligible for deduction under section 80IB on standalone basis by treating the same as one project by itself. Subject to the said verification, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT (A) on this issue is upheld. - Decided against revenue
Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Requirement of completion certificates from the local authority. 3. Partial completion of the housing project within the stipulated time. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Eligibility for Deduction under Section 80IB(10): The primary issue was whether the assessee, a partnership firm engaged in constructing a housing project, was eligible for a deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the claim, arguing that the entire project was not completed within the stipulated time and completion certificates were not obtained from the local authority, Jodhpur Development Authority (JDA). The AO contended that the project, approved on 07.12.2006, was to be completed by 31.03.2012, but only five out of seven phases were completed by that date. 2. Requirement of Completion Certificates from the Local Authority: The AO's disallowance was also based on the absence of completion certificates from JDA. The assessee argued that JDA did not issue completion certificates for buildings less than 15 meters in height, as per their guidelines. Instead, JDA advised obtaining certificates from a registered architect, which the assessee did. The CIT (A) and the Tribunal found this to be sufficient compliance. The Tribunal referenced prior decisions, including the case of CIT vs Tarnetar Corporation, which held that substantial compliance with statutory requirements could suffice if strict compliance was impossible. 3. Partial Completion of the Housing Project: The AO argued that the entire project needed to be completed to qualify for the deduction. The assessee claimed the deduction only for the completed phases. The CIT (A) and the Tribunal supported this view, citing various case laws, including CIT vs Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing Co. Ltd., which emphasized a liberal interpretation of tax incentives. The Tribunal also referenced the case of Vertex Homes Pvt. Ltd., where deductions were allowed for completed blocks of a project, even if the entire project was not completed. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)'s decision to allow the deduction under section 80IB(10) for the completed phases of the housing project. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee's substantial compliance with the statutory requirements, including obtaining completion certificates from a registered architect due to JDA's guidelines, was sufficient. The Tribunal also noted that partial completion of the project within the stipulated time should not disqualify the assessee from claiming the deduction for the completed phases. The appeal of the revenue was dismissed, affirming the CIT (A)'s order.
|
