9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 464X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant. - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No. 1870/Ahd/2011 - - - Dated:- 20-1-2016 - Anil Chaturvedi, AM And Kul Bharat, JM For the Appellant : Shri Dinesh Singh, Sr. AR For the Respondents : Shri P M Mehta with Shri G M Thakor, ARs ORDER Per Kul Bharat, Judicial Member This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-I, Ahmedabad ['CIT(A)' in short] dated 13/05/2011 pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2008-09. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1) The Ld.Commissioner of Income-tax(A)-I, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts in directing the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee's claim for deduction of ₹ 1,38,55,7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder, preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), who after considering the submissions of the assessee partly allowed the appeal, thereby directing the AO to allow the deduction u/s.80-IB(10) of the Act in view of the decision of the Coordinate Bench (ITAT 'A' Bench Ahmedabad) in the case of Radhe Developers vs. ITO in ITA No.2482/Ahd/2006 and of ITO vs. M/s. Shakti Corporation in ITA No.1503/Ahd/2008 dated 07/11/2008. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), now the Revenue is in appeal before us. 3. Ground No.1 2 are inter-connected and, therefore, the same are decided together. The ld.Sr.DR vehemently argued that the ld.CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition. He submitted that the assessee is not entitled for the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e facts of the case, submissions of the appellant and perused the arguments of the Assessing officer. The AO's arguments are mainly based on two grounds i.e. the land was registered in the name of the society and that the permission for development was in the name of Society. As against this, the appellant has clarified and proved that the development was carried out by them. Even the cost for obtaining permission was borne by the appellant. The appellant had entered into both the agreements for development as also banakhat for purchase of land with the society and as per the agreement they have carried out the development work. Thus, appellant in present case has acquired dominant control over the land and as per banakhat agreement ent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fter, the land owner and builder share the constructed are. The builder delivers the owner's share to the land holder and retains the builder's share. The land holder sells/transfers undivided share'/s in the land corresponding to the builder's share of the building to the builder or his nominees. The land holder will have no say or control in the construction of have any say as to whom and at what cost the builder's share of apartments are to be dealt with or disposed of. Such an agreement is not a joint venture in the legal sense. It is a contract for services. (ii) On the other hand, an agreement between the owner of a land and a builder, for construction of apartments and sale of those apartments so as to sha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
