9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (10) TMI 981 - AT - Income TaxAllowance of deduction u/s 80IB of the Income Tax Act construction of housing and other projects - asssessee was not the owner of land - Held that - Reliance has been placed on the decision in the case of M/s. Radhe Developers, wherein it has been held that assessee developer is having dominant control over the land in question Also, assessee developer was bearing entire risk and entitled to the entire reward Assessee in the past has been allowed the benefit of deduction u/s. 80IB(10) and the benefit has not been withdrawn by the court . Further, since the facts of the case in the year under appeal are identical to that of earlier years, respectfully following the aforesaid order of the Co-ordinate Bench of earlier years, deduction allowed Decided against the Revenue.
Issues:
Appeal against CIT(A) order for A.Y. 2007-08 - Disallowance of deduction u/s. 80IB(10) - Assessee's eligibility for deduction based on land ownership and development rights. Analysis: The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad was filed by the Revenue against the CIT(A) order for the assessment year 2007-08. The primary issue revolved around the disallowance of deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessee, a company engaged in land development and construction projects, had claimed the deduction, which was disallowed by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) on the grounds that the Assessee was not the land owner but had acquired development rights from various land owners. The A.O. contended that the Assessee acted as a mere contractor and did not have the necessary ownership for the deduction. The CIT(A), however, ruled in favor of the Assessee, citing precedents and determining that the Assessee had acquired dominance over the land and bore the risks and expenses associated with the project, making it eligible for the deduction. The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both parties. The Revenue relied on the A.O.'s order, while the Assessee pointed out earlier favorable decisions by the Tribunal on similar facts. The Tribunal noted that in previous assessment years, the Co-ordinate Bench had ruled in favor of the Assessee regarding the deduction under section 80IB(10). The Tribunal highlighted a crucial finding by the CIT(A) that the Assessee had dominant control over the land and bore the risks and rewards of the project, making it the beneficial owner despite not holding the title. Referring to the judgment of the Gujarat High Court, the Tribunal concluded that the Assessee met the requirements for the deduction, and therefore, upheld the CIT(A)'s decision in favor of the Assessee based on consistent precedents and legal principles. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing that the Assessee had previously been granted the deduction under section 80IB(10) without withdrawal by the court. Given the identical nature of the facts in the current case to those of earlier years where the Assessee was favored, the Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order. Thus, the appeal of the Revenue was rejected, and the decision was pronounced in open court on 11-10-2013.
|
