9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (3) TMI 502 - HC - Income TaxDeduction under Section 80IB - as per revenue assessee is not the owner of the property and had executed a contract with the purchasers of undivided share in the land to construct the building - Tribunal held that the completion certificate is not necessary in view of the letter dated 14.12.2009, issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Corporation, when the assessee itself had stated that the project is 'under construction in the form submitted to the Assessing Officer- HELD THAT - As decided in own case 2014 (11) TMI 610 - MADRAS HIGH COURT which came to be decided in favour of the Assessee, holding that for the purpose of considering deduction, it is not necessary that the Assessee, engaged in developing and construction of housing project and the only point is that he should be the owner of the property. ITAT, on facts also found that the Assessee has obtained approvals of the plan for the proposed projects and also planned the entire project regarding number of floors, number of apartments in each floor, cost of each apartment based on the square foot area of the apartment and it was done as a composite project at the proposed site in S.Nos.486/1 and 482. In the light of the factual findings coupled with the fact that the Assessee's own case, on the earlier occasions in was allowed and though a ground was raised before the ITAT as to the location of the plots in two different streets, but no arguments have been advanced, this Court is of the considered view that there are no substantial questions of law arise for consideration in this appeal. - Decided against revenue.
Issues:
1. Claim of deduction under Section 80IB[10] of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Consideration of project as separate or unified. 3. Compliance with Development Control Rules of CMDA. 4. Legal interpretation of substantial questions of law. 5. Entitlement for deduction under Section 80IB[10]. 6. Location of plots in two different streets. Analysis: 1. Claim of deduction under Section 80IB[10]: The appellant, Revenue, challenged the respondent's claim for deduction under Section 80IB[10] of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim citing non-compliance with the conditions specified in the Section. The issue revolved around the project's classification as a unified or separate project, impacting the eligibility for the deduction. 2. Consideration of project as separate or unified: The dispute arose from the Assessing Officer's observation that the project did not qualify as a unified project under Section 80IB[10] due to the construction of blocks on plots measuring less than one acre each. The Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] and the ITAT considered the project as a single entity, emphasizing the development as a composite project on the proposed site. 3. Compliance with Development Control Rules of CMDA: The Revenue argued that the project was developed separately to circumvent the Development Control Rules of CMDA, disqualifying the Assessee from availing benefits under Section 80IB[10]. The ITAT found the Revenue's appeal devoid of merit, highlighting the project's compliance with the rules and the approvals obtained on a unit basis for the project's advantage. 4. Legal interpretation of substantial questions of law: The Court addressed substantial questions of law raised in previous judgments, emphasizing the Assessee's entitlement to deduction under Section 80IB[10]. The Division Bench's judgment clarified that the Assessee need not be the property owner for claiming the deduction, focusing on the development and construction aspects of the housing project. 5. Entitlement for deduction under Section 80IB[10]: The Court considered the Assessee's compliance with the conditions specified in Section 80IB[10], particularly regarding the built-up area of residential units and the project's overall development. Previous judgments and factual findings supported the Assessee's entitlement to the deduction, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal. 6. Location of plots in two different streets: The Court examined the location of plots in two different streets as raised in the appeal. However, no substantial arguments were presented on this aspect, leading to the Court's decision that no significant legal questions arose for consideration. Consequently, the Tax Case Appeal was dismissed, upholding the ITAT's order related to the Assessment Year 2008-09.
|
