9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (7) TMI 564 - HC - Income TaxDeduction u/s 80IB of the Act Assessee contractor or developer - AO was of the view that assessee was a contractor of land owners / cooperative housing society, which is a separate legal entity, which through the Development Agreement assigned the construction work of tenements to the assessee Held that - CIT(A) as well as Tribunal was of the view that the assessee is a developer Tribunal relied upon the assessee s own case for the earlier assessment year, wherein it has been held that, the assessee was not found violating any of the conditions stipulated in section 80IB(10) Relying upon COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. RADHE DEVELOPERS 2011 (12) TMI 248 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT thus, no error has been committed by the Tribunal in dismissing the appeal preferred by the Revenue and confirming the order passed by the CIT(A), granting deduction to the assessee, as claimed, u/s 80IB of the Act Decided against Revenue.
Issues:
1. Disallowance of deduction under Section 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Analysis: The appellant, a Firm engaged in construction, filed a return of income for the Assessment Year 2007-08, claiming a deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Act. The Assessing Officer denied the claim, stating that the appellant was merely a contractor and not a developer. The CIT(A) allowed the appeal, holding the appellant as a developer. The Revenue appealed to the ITAT, which upheld the CIT(A)'s decision. The High Court noted that both the CIT(A) and ITAT had found the appellant to be a developer. Referring to a previous decision, the High Court affirmed that if the appellant was considered a developer, they were entitled to the deduction under Section 80IB. Consequently, the High Court found no error in the ITAT's decision to grant the deduction to the appellant. In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, stating that the appellant was entitled to the deduction under Section 80IB as claimed. The High Court found no merit in the Revenue's arguments and upheld the decisions of the lower authorities.
|
