2012 (8) TMI 353 - AT - Income Tax

Addition made by way of disallowance of deduction claimed u/s.80-IB(10) - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - As neither the Assessee nor the Revenue have placed any compilation to appreciate the exact terms and conditions of the agreement, stated to be a development agreement, the matter has been restored back to the AO - As in the event if the AO finds that the land had been purchased by the undertaking of the assessee and has all the dominant control over the project and developed the land at their own cost and risks, the AO should allow the deduction u/s.80IB(10) - in favour of revenue for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of deduction claimed u/s.80-IB(10) of the I.T. Act due to ownership of land.
2. Applicability of Supreme Court decisions in the context of section 80-IB(10).
3. Eligibility for deduction u/s.80-IB(10) based on past assessments.
4. Examination of terms of development agreement for deduction eligibility.

Issue 1:
The appeal concerned the disallowance of a deduction claimed u/s.80-IB(10) of the I.T. Act amounting to Rs.6,74,712. The Assessing Officer contended that the construction work, for which the deduction was claimed, was carried out by the assessee on behalf of a Co-operative Housing Society, and the land belonged to the society. The Assessing Officer argued that the assessee did not have dominion over the land, which is a crucial factor for claiming the deduction. The first appellate authority, however, allowed the claim based on similar decisions in previous assessment years.

Issue 2:
The Revenue raised a point regarding the applicability of Supreme Court decisions in the context of section 80-IB(10). They argued that the decision in the case of Mysore Minerals Ltd. was not relevant, and the issue of dominion over the land should be understood in perspective as settled by the subsequent decision in the case of Tamilnadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to analyze the development agreement to determine if the assessee had full authority over the project, including control over the land.

Issue 3:
The eligibility for the deduction u/s.80-IB(10) was also a key issue, with the first appellate authority allowing the claim based on consistency with past assessments for the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the matter had been settled by the Jurisdictional High Court in a separate case, providing guidelines for granting the deduction. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to examine various aspects of the agreement to determine the eligibility for the deduction.

Issue 4:
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to conduct a detailed examination of the terms of the development agreement to ascertain various factors. These factors included determining if the agreement constituted a "work contract" or a "Development Contract," analyzing the responsibility for project execution, assessing ownership and control over the land, examining financial arrangements, and evaluating risk elements associated with the housing project. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of considering these factors to determine the eligibility for deduction u/s.80-IB(10).

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal for statistical purposes, as the matter was restored back to the Assessing Officer for further examination based on the detailed guidelines provided by the Tribunal regarding the terms of the development agreement and other relevant factors for determining the eligibility for the deduction u/s.80-IB(10).