9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 1599 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance u/s.80IB(10) - CIT(A) allowed the claim - Held that - We find that the ld.CIT(A) has given categorical finding that the assessee has met the test laid by the Coordinate Bench in the case of Shakti Corporation (2008 (10) TMI 550 - ITAT, AHMEDABAD) and also the risk and consequences in developing the project are borne by the assessee. Reliance is also placed on the judgement of Hon ble Gujarat High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Radhe Developers 2011 (12) TMI 248 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT . Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the ld.CIT(A), same is hereby upheld. - Decided in favour of assessee
Issues:
1. Disallowance of deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the Act 2. Eligibility of the assessee for deduction u/s.80IB(10) 3. Appeal against the order of the Assessing Officer Analysis: Issue 1: Disallowance of deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the Act The Revenue appealed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) regarding the disallowance of a deduction amounting to Rs. 81,88,289 under section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2008-09. The Assessing Officer had disallowed the claim, stating that the assessee did not fulfill the conditions required for the deduction. The AO's reasons included that the assessee was not the owner of the land, did not undertake investment risk, and was merely a contractor for the construction project. However, the Ld. CIT(A) countered these findings by emphasizing that the assessee had met the conditions specified in section 80IB(10) and had practically purchased the land, bearing the risk of development. The Ld. CIT(A) directed the AO to allow the deduction, citing a previous ITAT decision and the content of the Development Agreement. The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the assessee fulfilled the conditions and bore the risk of developing the project, as evidenced by financial records and the agreement. Issue 2: Eligibility of the assessee for deduction u/s.80IB(10) The Revenue contended that the assessee, not being the owner of the land and acting as a contractor, was not eligible for the deduction under section 80IB(10). However, the Ld. CIT(A) found that the appellant had practically purchased the land, borne the risk of development, and fulfilled the conditions specified in the Act. The Tribunal agreed with the Ld. CIT(A)'s findings, emphasizing that the assessee met the tests laid down in previous decisions and had borne the cost and risk of the project. The Tribunal also referenced a judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in support of the decision. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the grounds raised by the Revenue challenging the eligibility of the assessee for the deduction. Issue 3: Appeal against the order of the Assessing Officer The Revenue raised grounds challenging the order of the Assessing Officer, seeking to set aside the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision and restore that of the AO. However, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the Ld. CIT(A)'s order, as it was based on a thorough analysis of the facts and legal provisions. The Tribunal dismissed the general nature of the grounds raised by the Revenue, upholding the decision in favor of the assessee. Consequently, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed by the Tribunal. This judgment highlights the importance of meeting the specified conditions under section 80IB(10) for claiming deductions and emphasizes the significance of bearing the risk and cost of development in such cases. The decision provides clarity on the eligibility criteria for deductions under the Income Tax Act and underscores the role of legal agreements and financial records in establishing eligibility for tax benefits.
|
