2025 (4) TMI 1471 - AT - Income Tax

Denial of deduction u/s 80-IB(10) - profits from a housing project - A.Y. 2008-09 - HELD THAT - In assessee s own case for the assessment year 2007-08 it is evident that the claim of deduction u/s 80-IB(10) was allowed to the assessee only in respect of Wing-A to Wing-F of the housing project Aakash Nidhi while in respect of Wing-G of the aforementioned housing project the claim of the assessee u/s 80-IB(10) was denied. Therefore in the absence of any distinguishing facts pertaining to the claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) in respect of housing project Aakash Nidhi in the present case respectfully following the settled position in the assessee s own case AO is directed to grant the deduction u/s 80-IB(10) to the assessee proportionate to the profits earned from Wing-A to Wing-F of the housing project Aakash Nidhi . Accordingly Ground No. 1 raised in assessee s appeal is partly allowed. Deduction claimed u/s 80-IB(10) was denied as so many flats were sold to the spouses of the existing flat owners - A.Y. 2010-11 - We are of the considered view that whether the flats were allotted to the spouse of the existing flat owners or the same were allotted to the major children of the flat owners requires verification. Therefore we deem it appropriate to restore this aspect of the issue to the file of the jurisdictional AO for necessary examination of the details placed reliance upon by the assessee. Exemption u/s 80IB(10) on proportionate basis - housing project Aakash Nidhi comprising of seven buildings namely Wing-A to Wing-G - HELD THAT - Insofar as the claim of the assessee in respect of Wing-A to Wing-F deduction under section 80-IB(10) of the Act is allowed respectfully following the settled position in assessee s own case for the assessment year 2007-08. Further insofar as the claim of the assessee in respect of Wing-G of the housing project Aakash Nidhi we deem it appropriate to restore the issue to the file of the jurisdictional AO for de novo adjudication in light of the decision of the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in Vandana Properties 2012 (4) TMI 54 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT Same flat has been sold twice by the AO - Having considered the submissions of both sides we deem it appropriate to restore this aspect of the issue also to the file of the jurisdictional AO for necessary verification to examine whether the same flat was re-sold or reallotted by the assessee. It is further directed that if upon examination it is found that the assessee merely re-allotted the same flat due to non-fulfilment of allotment conditions by the earlier allottee then the AO is directed to grant deduction under section 80-IB(10) of the Act to the assessee in respect of the balance deduction claimed by the assessee in the year under consideration.

The core legal questions considered in the appeals relate primarily to the eligibility and extent of deduction under section 80-IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, claimed by the assessee in respect of profits from a housing project. The key issues include:

1. Whether the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 80-IB(10) of the Act when the entire housing project comprising multiple wings was not completed within the stipulated time frame.

2. Whether the allotment of residential units to related persons, specifically spouses or minor children of the original allottee, violates clause (f) of the Explanation to section 80-IB(10), thereby disentitling the assessee from claiming the deduction.

3. Whether the deduction under section 80-IB(10) can be allowed proportionately when only part of the project qualifies.

4. Whether the levy of interest under sections 234B and 234C and penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act are justified.

5. Whether the resale or re-allotment of flats on which deduction was previously claimed impacts the eligibility for deduction under section 80-IB(10).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility for Deduction under Section 80-IB(10) in Case of Incomplete Project

Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 80-IB(10) grants deduction to profits earned from housing projects subject to conditions including obtaining commencement and completion certificates within prescribed timelines. The proviso under section 80-IB(10)(a)(ii) mandates that the entire housing project must be completed within the stipulated period, failing which the deduction is disallowed.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The project "Aakash Nidhi" consisted of seven wings (A to G). The first commencement certificate was issued on 02/05/2000, and completion certificates for Wings A to F were obtained before 31/03/2008, but Wing G was incomplete as of that date. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the entire deduction on the ground that the project was not completed in entirety within the prescribed time.

The Tribunal examined the assessee's own case for assessment year 2007-08, where the CIT(A) had allowed deduction only for Wings A to F, holding Wing G to be a separate project since it was appended later after conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural use and issuance of a revised commencement certificate in 2006. The Tribunal upheld this view, supported by judgments including the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court's decision in Vandana Properties, which distinguished between original and subsequently appended wings for the purpose of section 80-IB(10).

Key Evidence and Findings: The timeline of approvals, commencement and completion certificates, and land conversion records were pivotal. It was found that Wing G was approved later and was not part of the original commencement certificate. Completion certificate for Wing G was not obtained by 31/03/2008.

Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the statutory requirement strictly, holding that the deduction under section 80-IB(10) cannot be allowed for the entire project if any part remains incomplete. However, it allowed the deduction proportionate to the profits attributable to Wings A to F, which were completed on time.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee argued for the entire project to be treated as one, including Wing G. The Court rejected this, relying on prior decisions and the principle that subsequent additions after the original project commencement cannot be clubbed for deduction purposes.

Conclusion: Deduction under section 80-IB(10) is allowed only for Wings A to F, proportionate to profits earned, while Wing G is excluded due to non-fulfillment of completion condition.

2. Violation of Clause (f) of Explanation to Section 80-IB(10) - Allotment to Related Persons

Legal Framework and Precedents: Clause (f) of the Explanation to section 80-IB(10) prohibits allotment of more than one residential unit to an individual or their spouse, minor children, or related entities, to prevent misuse of the deduction.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The AO disallowed deduction on the ground that flats were allotted to spouses of existing flat owners, violating clause (f). The assessee contended that flats were allotted to major children, not spouses, and submitted agreements of sale as evidence.

Key Evidence and Findings: The AO's findings were based on records showing multiple allotments to related persons. The Tribunal found that the factual determination of whether allotments were to spouses or major children required verification.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal restored this issue to the AO for fresh examination, directing that if violation is found, deduction be disallowed proportionately. The assessee must be given reasonable opportunity to present its case.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal balanced the Revenue's concern against the assessee's evidence, deferring final decision to fact-finding at AO level.

Conclusion: Issue remanded for verification; deduction to be disallowed pro-rata if violation confirmed.

3. Deduction Allowed on Proportionate Basis

The Tribunal consistently held that where only part of the project complies with section 80-IB(10) conditions, deduction must be allowed proportionate to the eligible portion, i.e., Wings A to F. This principle was applied in all relevant assessment years, following the precedent in assessee's own case and supported by judicial authority.

4. Levy of Interest under Sections 234B and 234C and Penalty under Section 271(1)(c)

These issues were raised but deemed consequential or premature. The Tribunal declined to adjudicate separately on interest and penalty, dismissing penalty claims as premature and leaving interest issues to be decided in due course.

5. Resale or Re-allotment of Flats and Its Impact on Deduction

The Revenue challenged the allowance of deduction where the same flat was sold twice, arguing that the second sale resulted in trading income not eligible for deduction. The assessee explained that flats were re-allotted only due to non-fulfillment of payment conditions by earlier allottees.

The Tribunal directed the AO to verify the facts and determine whether re-allotment was genuine or constituted a fresh sale. If re-allotment, deduction was to be allowed proportionately; if fresh sale, deduction would be disallowed accordingly. Adequate opportunity to the assessee was mandated.

Significant Holdings:

"The project commenced consisted only of six buildings. The seventh building which came up after conversion of the contiguous plot of land into non-agricultural use, cannot be considered to be forming part of the original plan... Therefore, it is held that only wings A to F forms part of the project and the wing G which got subsequently appended has to be considered as a separate project altogether."

"The second commencement certificate gives only the approval for further extension of one more wing and revalidating the earlier six wings, therefore, it cannot be held that the entire commencement of the project should be reckoned from the date 27th January 2006."

"Clause (f) of the Explanation to section 80-IB(10) mandates that where a residential unit is allotted to an individual, no other residential unit can be allotted to the spouse or minor children of such individual... Whether the flats were allotted to the spouse or major children requires verification."

"If, upon verification, it is found that the provisions of clause (f) are violated, then to that extent only the deduction under section 80-IB(10) shall be disallowed on a pro-rata basis."

"If it is found that the assessee merely re-allotted the same flat due to non-fulfillment of allotment conditions by the earlier allottee, then the AO is directed to grant deduction under section 80-IB(10) in respect of the balance deduction claimed."

The Tribunal established the core principles that deductions under section 80-IB(10) must strictly comply with statutory conditions including timely completion of the entire project or eligible portions thereof, and non-violation of related party allotment restrictions. Partial completion or partial compliance entitles the assessee to proportionate deduction. Issues of related party allotment and resale require detailed factual verification before final determination.

← Previous Next →