Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (10) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2015 (10) TMI 2235 - AT - Income Tax


Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in allowing the deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Whether buildings A1 and A2 can be considered a separate housing project from buildings A3 to A8.
3. Whether the entire project "Kumar Primavera" should be treated as a single housing project for the purpose of deduction u/s 80IB(10).
4. The implications of the completion certificate dates on the eligibility for deduction u/s 80IB(10).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Allowing Deduction u/s 80IB(10):
The Revenue challenged the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for allowing the deduction u/s 80IB(10) for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10. The assessee claimed deductions of Rs. 6,64,09,622/- and Rs. 2,93,16,865/- for the respective years, arguing that the project "Kumar Primavera" was developed in two phases. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) accepted the claim, treating buildings A1 and A2 as a separate project from buildings A3 to A8.

2. Separate Housing Project for Buildings A1 and A2:
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held that buildings A1 and A2 constituted a separate housing project independent of buildings A3 to A8. The approval for Phase-I (A1 and A2) was obtained on 02-02-2005, with a completion certificate issued on 05-09-2008. The Revenue argued that the entire project should be treated as one, but the Commissioner differentiated based on separate commencement certificates and phases.

3. Single Housing Project Argument:
The Revenue contended that the entire project, including buildings A1 to A8, should be considered a single housing project. They argued that the plan for buildings A3 to A8 was a mere revision of the original plan and additional constructions on the same plot. The Revenue emphasized that the original commencement certificate was issued on 02-02-2005, and the project should have been completed by 31-03-2009.

4. Completion Certificate Dates:
The Assessing Officer denied the deduction on the grounds that the project was not completed by 31-03-2009. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) found that the completion certificate for buildings A1 and A2 was obtained on 05-09-2008, and for buildings A3 to A8 on 31-03-2011. The Tribunal upheld that the assessee complied with the completion requirements for both phases within the stipulated timelines, making them eligible for the deduction.

Tribunal's Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the assessee is eligible for the deduction u/s 80IB(10) for both phases of the project. The Tribunal supported the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)'s decision to treat buildings A1 and A2 as a separate project from buildings A3 to A8. The Tribunal referenced various case laws, including CIT Vs. Vandana Properties and Mudhit Madanlal Gupta Vs. ACIT, supporting the eligibility for deduction on part completion of the project if all conditions are met.

Final Decision:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, upholding the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)'s orders and allowing the deductions claimed by the assessee for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10. The Tribunal emphasized that the completion certificates were obtained within the permissible timeframes, and the project complied with all conditions under section 80IB(10).

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates