9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (12) TMI 26 - HC - Income TaxDeduction u/s 80IB(10) - Commencement certificate of the local authority for the housing project was obtained on 28th November 1992, i.e., much before 1st October 1998, the date on or after which the development and construction of the housing project should have commenced to be eligible for deduction u/s 80IB(10) - HELD THAT - On the plan approved by local authority on 28th November 1992 it has been concluded and held on facts that the plan based on which the assessee commenced development and construction, was totally different from the plan which was approved on 28th November 1992 and the revised plan based on which the assessee commenced the development and construction, was entirely different from the original plan and that plan has been approved by the local authority only in 2003. It has been factually held that as per the original plan approved on 28th November 1992, two buildings were to be constructed on the aforesaid plot of land. As per the revised building plan approved by the local authority in 2003, seven buildings were to be constructed on the said plot of land. It is also not disputed that assessee is a different entity from Bombay Gas Co. Ltd. which had got original plan approved in 1992 and the assessee had taken possession of the plot of land only in the year 2003 and thereafter got the revised plan approved. ITAT has not committed any perversity or applied incorrect principles to the given facts and when the facts and circumstances are properly analysed and correct test is applied to decide the issue at hand, then, we do not think that question as pressed raises any substantial question of law.
Issues:
1. Disallowance of deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act for violation of commencement date. 2. Disallowance of deduction under Section 80IB(10) for failure to obtain completion certificate before the specified date. 3. Appeal against the order of CIT(Appeals) allowing the deduction under Section 80IB(10). 4. Substantial questions of law proposed by the appellant. 5. Analysis of the first proposed question. 6. Analysis of the second proposed question. 7. Conclusion of the judgment. Issue 1: Disallowance of deduction under Section 80IB(10) for violation of commencement date: The respondent's claim for deduction under Section 80IB(10) was disallowed by the Assessing Officer due to the commencement of the housing project before 1st October 1998, violating the clause of Section 80IB(10). The Commissioner of Income Tax set aside the assessment order under Section 143(3), stating that the Assessing Officer failed to verify compliance with all conditions for project completion by 31st March 2008. Issue 2: Disallowance of deduction under Section 80IB(10) for failure to obtain completion certificate: The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction under Section 80IB(10) as the project was not completed before 31st March 2008, and the completion certificate was not obtained. The CIT(Appeals) allowed the deduction, which was upheld by the ITAT, leading to an appeal by the Revenue. Issue 3: Appeal against the order of CIT(Appeals) allowing the deduction under Section 80IB(10): The Revenue challenged the order of the CIT(Appeals) before the ITAT, which upheld the decision. The Revenue then appealed against the ITAT's order, leading to the current appeal before the court. Issue 4: Substantial questions of law proposed by the appellant: The appellant proposed two substantial questions of law related to the commencement and completion dates of the housing project for eligibility under Section 80IB(10). Issue 5: Analysis of the first proposed question: The court analyzed the facts and found that the expenses incurred by the original entity were for strengthening the boundary wall, not for development or construction of the housing project. The revised plan approved in 2003 was significantly different from the original plan, and the assessee, a different entity, took possession of the land in 2003. Issue 6: Analysis of the second proposed question: The court concluded that the ITAT did not commit any errors in analyzing the facts and applying the correct principles. The revised plan approved in 2003 differed substantially from the original plan of 1992, and the assessee's possession of the land post-2003 was considered. The court found no substantial question of law in this regard. Issue 7: Conclusion of the judgment: The court dismissed the appeal, stating it lacked merit, and no costs were awarded. The order applied to all related appeals listed. The appellant withdrew one appeal, and another appeal was listed for directions. This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive overview of the issues involved and the court's decision on each matter.
|
