2022 (9) TMI 349 - AT - Income Tax

Deduction u/s 80IB(10) - mandation of having one project being one acre of plot - plot was divided into two parts due to 30 meters reservation on DP road and 30 meters reservation for HCMTR - HELD THAT - As decided in assessee own case 2018 (9) TMI 1905 - ITAT PUNE issue regarding two plots had arisen because of the mistake of Architect where the plot was only one, but only for the sake of convenience, numbering was shown as plot No.I and plot No.II by the Architect. The Tribunal after noting various other aspects held that reservation on account of DP road as well as HCMTR would not alter the fact that the said plot was one plot and mere division on account of reservation would not change the character of existing plot. The conditions stipulated in section 80IB(10) of the Act, of the project being one acre of plot, was held to be fulfilled. Conditions stipulated in section 80IB(10) for claiming deduction have been fulfilled by the assessee and necessary evidences have been furnished and therefore, for the year under consideration, the assessee was entitled to get deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. The ld. D.R fairly conceded that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee. Respectfully following the aforestated decision of Pune Tribunal on the same parity of reasoning and the same set of facts and circumstances, the claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act which has been allowed to the assessee by the ld. CIT(A) following the Tribunal‟s order (supra) cannot be faulted with for any reason whatsoever. The relief provided to the assessee is sustained.

Summary

Issues: Whether the deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was rightly allowed by the ld. CIT(A) for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16.

Analysis:
1. The appeals by the Revenue challenged the order of the ld. CIT(A) allowing the deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. The Tribunal noted that the facts and issues in both appeals were identical and thus heard together.

2. The Assessing Officer (A.O) disallowed the deduction u/s 80IB(10) to the assessee, but the ld. CIT(A) granted the deduction based on a previous order of the Pune Tribunal in the assessee's own case for A.Y. 2011-12 to 2013-14, where it was held that multiple projects on one acre of land were permissible.

3. During the hearing, the assessee's representative referred to a favorable decision in the assessee's case for A.Y. 2011-12 to 2013-14, where the Tribunal held that the conditions for claiming deduction under section 80IB(10) were fulfilled, and the assessee was entitled to the deduction.

4. The Tribunal, following the previous decision and the facts of the current case, upheld the ld. CIT(A)'s order allowing the deduction u/s 80IB(10) for both assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed for both years based on the same reasoning and set of circumstances.

5. The Tribunal concluded that the relief provided to the assessee in allowing the deduction was justified and sustained for both assessment years. The appeals of the Revenue were dismissed for both A.Y. 2014-15 and A.Y. 2015-16 based on the consistent application of the law and previous decisions.

This detailed analysis highlights the key legal arguments, precedents, and decisions that led to the Tribunal's judgment in favor of the assessee regarding the deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the relevant assessment years.