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

TMI Blog

Home

2014 (5) TMI 228

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 80IB(10) is available to an assessee who is engaged in the business of developing and building a housing project. Prescribed limit exceeded or not - Whether part of the approved project pertaining to Villas or Bungalows exceeded the prescribed limit in Built-up Area – Held that:- Both the CIT(A) and Tribunal was of the view that four row houses have been built upon the area exceeding 1500 sq.ft, were not part and parcel of the housing project, for which the deduction was claimed and that the assessees had not claimed deduction for those four Bungalows - the claim of the assessees for the buildings other than the four row houses was in consonance with the condition stipulated in Section 80IB (10) of the Act – no substantial question of l .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s a real estate developer. On 1 April 2006, the assessee entered into an agreement with the owner of the land for purchase of plot of land admeasuring approximately 1.66 acres (6,725 sq.mtrs.). The consideration for purchase of the said land was discharged partly in cash and partly by way of bearing cost of construction of 4 row houses to be handed over to the seller. As per the plans submitted, the respondent-assessee was to undertake construction of 4 buildings having 88 residential units ranging from 863.60 sq.ft. to 1287 sq.ft. Pursuant to the above agreement on the basis of the plans prepared, the assessee and the seller made a joint application to the Village Panchayat of Navelim on 4 May 2006 for its approval to the housing project. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... evelopment agreement with the land owner and permissions were granted by the competent authority for construction of the housing project in the name of the land owner. The other conditions prescribed under Section 80IB(10) were complied with and there was no deduction claimed for the bungalows constructed for the land owner in excess of 1500 sq.ft. each. The CIT (Appeals) relied on the decision of the Gujarat high Court in CIT vs. Radhe Developers, 341 ITR 403 for holding that the risks and costs relating to the project were on the assessee and not on the owner of the land and therefore the assessee was entitled to claim benefit under Section 80IB(10) of the Act. 7. The Tribunal has confirmed the aforesaid order of the CIT (Appeals) foll .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd expenses and also to receive contribution and other deposits, the developer-assessee had to make necessary arrangements, for which he had to raise funds from the financial institutions and banks etc. The land owner also agreed to give necessary signatures on the agreements and power of attorney to facilitate the work of the developer. In short, the assessee-developer had undertaken the entire task of development, construction and sale of the housing units to be located on the land belonging to the original land owner and the assessee-developer was entitled to use the full FSI as per the existing rules and regulations and even in future in case the additional FSI would be available., the developer-assessee would have full right to use the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he project were on the assessee-developer and not on the owner of the land. The deduction is available in case of developing and building housing project, and it is the respondent-assessees who are engaged in the business of developing and building housing project in question and therefore we do not find any merit in the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant-revenue that the respondents-assessee were not eligible to the benefit under Section 80IB(10) of the Act, merely because the project was not approved in the name of respondents-assessee, but was in the name of the original land owner. 12. As regards the second question whether the benefit of deduction under Section 80IB (10) could be lost on the ground that residen .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates