9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (10) TMI 81 - HC - Income TaxDisallowance of the deduction u/s 80IB( 10) - whether the appellate tribunal justified in remitting the matter to the AO, more particularly, when all the facts were on record before the appellate tribunal? - HELD THAT - If the facts are on record, then the appellate tribunal is duty bound to look into the same and decide the matter accordingly. Remitting the matter without any justifiable reason will be nothing, but sheer waste of time. This tax appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order passed by the appellate tribunal is hereby quashed and set aside and the order passed by the CIT Appeals to the extent of eligible deduction under Section80IB (10) of the Act is concerned, is hereby affirmed. The three questions of law are answered accordingly in favour of the appellant assessee and against the revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act. 2. Remitting the matter back to the Assessing Officer for verification. 3. Legitimacy of charges collected from customers for AEC, AUDA, and legal charges under Section 80IB(10). Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance of Deduction under Section 80IB(10): The core issue was whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) erred in not confirming the deletion by the CIT(A) of the disallowance of the deduction under Section 80IB(10) amounting to ?1,58,94,590/-. The appellant-assessee, engaged in real estate and infrastructure development, had claimed this deduction for the Assessment Year 2011-12. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed this claim, asserting that the deduction is only available for income derived from the housing project, not from other receipts such as charges for AEC, AUDA, and legal charges. The AO argued that these charges were not directly linked to the sale of residential units and lacked a one-to-one nexus between the sums received and the expenses incurred. 2. Remitting the Matter Back to the Assessing Officer: The ITAT remitted the matter back to the AO for further verification, stating that the details regarding the Asmakam Project had not been fully examined by the lower authorities. The appellant contended that all necessary details were already on record and had been duly examined by the lower authorities, making the remittance unnecessary and a waste of time. 3. Legitimacy of Charges Collected from Customers: The CIT(A) had allowed the deduction under Section 80IB(10) for the charges collected from customers for AEC, AUDA, and legal charges, stating that these charges were integral to the housing project and were recovered from customers as per the sale agreement. The CIT(A) referenced several judgments, including those from the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various Tribunals, to support the view that such charges are part of the income derived from the housing project and thus eligible for deduction under Section 80IB(10). Final Judgment: The High Court found merit in the appellant's arguments and referred to the decision in CIT Vs. Pratham Developers, which held that any income arising out of the development of a housing project is eligible for deduction under Section 80IB(10). The Court concluded that the ITAT should have examined the facts on record rather than remitting the matter back to the AO. The High Court quashed the ITAT's order, affirmed the CIT(A)'s order allowing the deduction, and answered all three substantial questions of law in favor of the appellant-assessee and against the revenue.
|
