9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 1325X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and not developer. We, therefore, following the above decision of the Tribunal, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and delete the disallowance of claim of deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act. Thus, this ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he construction the unit and therefore according to him, the Assessee was a contractor and therefore not eligible for deduction u/s 801B(10). We also find that on identical facts, the co-ordinate Bench of the tribunal in the case of Satsang Developers (ITA No 1011, 2498 and 1221 of 2012 order dated 12.11.2013 has allowed the deduction to assessee by holding as under:- 4.2. In addition to above two objections, the Id.CIT (A) has raised one more objection that the assessee has sold the land to the Unit holders separately and has done the construction of units under separate agreement/contract and, therefore, the assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s.80-IB(10) of the Act because as per ld.CIT(A), profit earned by the assessee in respect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it was held by the Tribunal in that case that merely because of two separate agreements, the claim of the assessee for deduction u/s.80-IB (10) of the Act cannot be declined if other conditions are being satisfied. 5.3. He further submitted that in the case of DCIT vs. SMR Builders (P) Ltd. (supra) also, the facts were that the assessee had sold flats in a semi-finished stage. In that case, the AO had noted that as per the sale-deed, the assessee-company has sold undivided share of land with super-structure of semifinished built-up area for a certain consideration. The AO held that the semi-finished structure has never been considered as a residential unit. It was also noted by the AO in that case that on the same date when the sale deed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quarely covered in favour of assessee by the decision of ITAT Indore Bench rendered in the case of M/s.Vardhman Builders and Developers vs. ITO (supra). It is noted by the Tribunal in that case that the assessee had entered into an agreement for a sale of land and a separate agreement for construction of the house on the land and, therefore, the facts are similar. Under these facts, it was held by the Tribunal in that case that the claim of the assessee for deduction u/s.80-IB (10) of the Act cannot be declined if other conditions are being satisfied. Similarly, in the case of DCIT vs. SMR Builders (P.) Ltd. (supra) also, the assessee sold the land along with semi-finished structure to the buyers and as per separate agreement, agreed for co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... various public amenities within the project. Thereafter, it was held by the Tribunal that on a totality of a fact, the Tribunal is of the view that the assessee has undertaken developing and building housing projects as per the scheme provided in section 80- IB (10) of the Act. 9.3. Since the facts in the present case are similar to the facts in above noted three Tribunal decisions, we do not find any defect in the construction in the present case and hence respectfully following these decisions, we decide the issue in favour of the assessee. There is no other objection of the ld. CIT(A)regarding allowability of deduction to the assessee u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act. Hence, we direct the A.O to grant the deduction to the assessee u/s. 80IB(1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
