Income Tax

Deduction u/s 80IB(10)-Land ownership not a condition precedent for developing the housing project and claiming the deduction. ITAT

Deduction u/s 80IB(10)-Land ownership not a condition precedent for developing the housing project and claiming the deduction. ITAT

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
966 2016 (07) ITAT
Assessment Year: 2008-09
Date/Month of Judgment/Order July, 2016

Important Judgment Cited/relied upon:
CIT vs. Radhe Developers (2012) Gujarat High Court

Brief Facts of the Case:
The assessee was a partnership firm engaged in the business of construction and developing of infrastructure housing projects. During the year under consideration, the assessee filed return of income showing Nil income after claiming deduction u/s 80IB(10). However the deduction was disallowed by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the assessee was only a work contractor and not a developer. On appeal, the CIT(A) allowed the claim for deduction u/s. 80IB(10) to the assessee holding that the assessee-firm had not worked in the capacity of a contractor but has acquired dominant control over the land and has also borne the entire risk and responsibility of the project.

Observations of the Tribunal:
The Tribunal noted that the Gujarat High Court had held that the provisions nowhere required that only those developers who themselves own the land would receive the deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Neither the provisions of Section 80IB nor any other provisions contained in other related statutes demonstrate that ownership of the land would be a condition precedent for developing the housing project. Such requirement cannot be read into the statute because there is nothing under Section 80IB(10) requiring that ownership of the land must vest in the developer to be able to qualify for such deduction.

Held:
Accordingly the order of the CIT(A) allowing deduction to the assessee was confirmed and the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed.

Download Full Judgment

Share

Recent Posts

  • Income Tax

Once ITR is filled in response to notice u/s 148 though late, notice u/s 143(2) is must – ITAT

Once assessee filed ITR, in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act, even beyond time prescribed, Assessing Officer…

2 days ago
  • tender

Petitioner was not disqualified in tender for giving EMD by way of FD not DD

Petitioner was not disqualified in tender for submitting EMD by way of Fixed Deposit in place of Demand Draft -…

2 days ago
  • Bank

State Bank of India elects four Directors in its Central Board

State Bank of India in its General Meeting of the Shareholders elected four Directors to the Central Board. The meeting…

3 days ago
  • Income Tax

Declaration of additional income by increasing the WIP was not proper – ITAT

Voluntary declaration of additional income by increasing WIP was not proper, as assessee will take the additional benefit in the…

4 days ago
  • Income Tax

Cash payment for purchase of land or property not violation of 269SS or 269T

Cash payment for purchase of land or property cannot be treated as violation of provisions of section 269SS or 269T…

5 days ago
  • Income Tax

Excel Utility for ITR-1 and ITR-4 available for e-filing for AY 2026-27

Income Tax Department has released excel Utility for e-filing ITR-1 and ITR-4 for AY 2026-27 Excel utilities of ITR-1 and…

6 days ago