2012 (12) TMI 17 - AT - Income Tax

Deduction u/s 80IB - Real Estate Developers - dis-allowance on ground that land is not owned by the assessee-firm and approval of the local authority was also not in the name of assessee-firm - Held that - CIT(A) deleted dis-allowance placing reliance on decision in case of Radhe Developers (2011 (12) TMI 248 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT) wherein it was held that Section 80IB(10) provides for deductions to an undertaking engaged in the business of developing and constructing housing projects under certain circumstances. It does not provide that the land must be owned by the assessee seeking such deductions - Revenue s appeal is dismissed. Deduction u/s 80IB - dis-allowance of deduction on account of sale of bricks, sale of bitumen, Miscellaneous income - assessee contending the same to be in the form of sale of scrap generated during the manufacturing process - Held that - Issues of sale of brick and sale of bitumen are remitted back to the file of AO except miscellaneous income to examine whether sale of brick and sale of bitumen is a trading activity or sale of scrap after examining these aspects. AO may decide afresh - Decided in favor of assessee for statistical purposes.

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 80IB(10) regarding deduction for housing projects.
2. Ownership of land as a requirement for claiming deduction.
3. Allowance of deduction for unutilized FSI.
4. Reopening of assessment under Section 147.
5. Disallowance of deduction for specific income components.

Interpretation of Section 80IB(10) regarding deduction for housing projects:
The case involved appeals against orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) regarding the deduction under Section 80IB(10) for housing projects. The Revenue challenged the allowance of the deduction to the assessee, arguing that the assessee did not meet the requirements specified in the section. The issue revolved around the ownership of land and the approval by the local authority. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) based on previous judgments and allowed the deduction, emphasizing the responsibility of the assessee in the projects.

Ownership of land as a requirement for claiming deduction:
The Revenue contended that the assessee was not the owner of the land, which was a crucial factor for claiming the deduction under Section 80IB(10). However, the Tribunal referred to previous judgments and held that the assessee's responsibility for the risk and costs in the projects met the conditions required for the deduction. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this ground, citing precedents and the assessee's entitlement to the deduction.

Allowance of deduction for unutilized FSI:
Another issue raised was the allowance of deduction for unutilized Floor Space Index (FSI). The Tribunal referred to a previous decision and dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this ground, following the precedent set in a similar case. The decision was based on the interpretation of relevant provisions and case law.

Reopening of assessment under Section 147:
The assessee raised a ground against the reopening of the assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. However, the assessee decided not to press this issue, and it was dismissed accordingly.

Disallowance of deduction for specific income components:
The assessee's Cross Objection included grounds against the disallowance of deductions on specific amounts like the sale of bricks, bitumen, and miscellaneous income. The Tribunal partially allowed the Cross Objection for statistical purposes, remitting the issues back to the Assessing Officer for further examination and decision after considering additional aspects presented by the assessee.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals while partly allowing the assessee's Cross Objection for statistical purposes, emphasizing the importance of meeting the requirements specified in Section 80IB(10) for claiming deductions related to housing projects.

← Previous Next →