9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 2013 - - - Dated:- 17-3-2021 - THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY AND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI For the Appellant : Mr.M.Swaminathan, (in all 8 TCAs) Senior Standing Counsel For the Respondent : Mr.R.Sivaraman (in all 8 TCAs) JUDGMENT ( Judgment was delivered by M.DURAISWAMY, J. ) Challenging the orders passed in I.T.A.Nos.1644 to 1647/Mds/ 2012 in respect of the assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 2009-10 and the orders passed in I.T.A.Nos.1662 to 1665/ Mds/2012 in respect of the assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 2009-10 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai B Bench, the Revenue has filed the above appeals. 2.The appeals in T.C.A.Nos.387 to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ? 3.The appeals in T.C.A.Nos.391 to 394 of 2013 were admitted on the following substantial question of law: Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the appeal of the revenue as infructuous wherein the revenue had raised the grounds against the order of the CIT (A) admitting the additional grounds raised by the assessee with respect to capital gains and considering the income as capital gains and giving consequential deductions and reliefs? 4.So far as the appeals in T.C.A.Nso.387 to 390 of 2013 are concerned, Mr.M.Swaminathan, learned senior standing counsel appearing for the appellant Revenue fairly submitted that the questions of law involved in these appeals wer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sweeping observation that the expenses are not reflected in the said account. Therefore, we do not agree with the reasoning given by the Tribunal in this regard. 9.A Division Bench of this Court in the case of CIT vs. Sanghvi and Doshi Enterprise, [2013] 29 taxmann.com 386 (Madras), examined a similar question raised by a developer/promoter. The question of law framed for consideration was whether the assessee therein, who was a builder/promoter was eligible for deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Act. The Division Bench after considering the facts of the case and the terms of the joint development agreement, as in the instant case, decided the question in favour of the said assessee in the following terms:- 30. ....... Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... local authority as well as completion certificate was not granted to the assessee, but to the landowner and the rights and the obligations under the said approval were not transferable, and when the transfer of dwelling units in favour of the end-users was made by the landowner and not by the assessee. The question was decided in the favour of the assessee therein, in the following terms:- 30. The essence of sub-section (10) of Section 80IB, therefore, requires involvement of an undertaking in developing and building housing projects approved by the local authority. Apparently, such provision would be aimed at giving encouragement for providing units in the urban and semi-urban areas, where there is perennial and acute shortage of h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uction under Section 80IB of the Act and submitted that Section 80IB(10) contemplates grant of deduction and it being a deduction provision, the same has to be complied in absolute terms by the assessee. The Courts have held that in a case of development, the developer is also entitled to claim deduction and ownership is not the criteria. Unfortunately, in the instant case, the Revenue took a reverse stand contrary to the consistent stand taken by them before this Court and other High Courts, which was rejected by the High courts and affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 15.We may point out that the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Sanghvi and Doshi Enterprise (supra) was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... counsel appearing for the respondent assessee submitted that the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Division Bench in the judgment reported in [2019] 103 taxmann.com 425 (Madras) [Bashyam Constructions (P) Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle - 1 (2), Chennai], may be followed and the appeals may be dismissed. 8. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the judgment reported in [2019] 103 taxmann.com 425 (Madras) [Bashyam Constructions (P) Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle - 1 (2), Chennai], cited supra, the questions of law raised in the appeals in T.C.A.Nos.387 to 39 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
