9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (8) TMI 316 - AT - Income TaxEligibility of deduction under Section 80IB(10) - necessity of ownership of the land - Held that - We find that the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Radhe Developers (2011 (12) TMI 248 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT ) has held that the provisions nowhere required that only those developers who themselves own the land would receive the deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Act. Neither the provisions of Section 80IB nor any other provisions contained in other related statutes demonstrate that ownership of the land would be a condition precedent for developing the housing project. Such requirement cannot be read into the statute because there is nothing under Section 80IB(10) of the Act requiring that ownership of the land must vest in the developer to be able to qualify for such deduction. We, therefore, find that the order of the CIT(A) is supported by the order of the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) which is hereby confirmed and the grounds of appeal of the Revenue are dismissed. - Decided in favour of assessee
Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility of the assessee for deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act for AY 2008-09. 2. Eligibility of the assessee for deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act for AY 2009-10. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Eligibility of the assessee for deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act for AY 2008-09: The Revenue contended that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XV, Ahmedabad erred in directing the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee's claim for deduction of ?2,02,19,004 under Section 80IB(10). The primary argument was that the land was owned by various cooperative housing societies and not by the assessee. The societies had entered into development agreements with the assessee, who was thus seen as a contractor rather than a developer. The local authority had granted development permissions to the societies, not the assessee. The assessee's counsel argued that the issue was already settled in favor of the assessee by the ITAT judgment in the case of Narayan Realty Limited vs. DCIT, and similar cases where it was held that ownership of land is not a prerequisite for claiming deduction under Section 80IB(10). The Tribunal, upon reviewing the CIT(A)'s order and the precedents, found that the CIT(A) had correctly allowed the deduction, following the ITAT's earlier judgments which established that the assessee need not be the landowner to qualify for the deduction. 2. Eligibility of the assessee for deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act for AY 2009-10: For AY 2009-10, the Revenue raised similar objections, arguing that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XV, Ahmedabad erred in allowing the assessee's claim for deduction of ?15,93,76,433 under Section 80IB(10). The argument was again based on the fact that the land was owned by various cooperative housing societies, and the assessee was merely a contractor executing the project under development agreements. The assessee's counsel reiterated that the issue was covered by the ITAT's previous judgments, which held that the developer need not own the land to claim deductions under Section 80IB(10). The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and reviewing the CIT(A)'s order, found that the CIT(A) had rightly allowed the deduction, consistent with the ITAT's earlier rulings and the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. Radhe Developers. The High Court had clarified that ownership of the land is not required for claiming deductions under Section 80IB(10). Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed both appeals by the Revenue, confirming that the assessee was eligible for deductions under Section 80IB(10) for both AY 2008-09 and AY 2009-10. The Tribunal's decision was based on established precedents that ownership of land is not a condition for claiming such deductions, and the assessee's role as a developer under the development agreements qualified them for the deductions. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s orders, aligning with the jurisdictional High Court's interpretation of the relevant provisions. Order Pronouncement: The order was pronounced in the court on 29th June 2016 at Ahmedabad, dismissing both appeals by the Revenue.
|
