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

  • ICAI

CA Misconduct – Order quashed as judgment not passed by same members who heard arguments.

CA Misconduct – Appellate order quashed as final judgment was not passed by same members who heard arguments. In a…

16 hours ago
  • Insurance

Deceased homemaker can not be considered as dependant for award of compensation under MV Act – SC

Deceased homemaker can not be considered as dependant for award of compensation under MV Act. Courts to award a composite…

22 hours ago
  • Income Tax

CIT notice u/s 263 quashed as AO rightly took DVO value of property as actual sale price

CIT Revision notice u/s 263 quashed as the Assessing Officer rightly taken DVO value of property sold as actual sale…

3 days ago
  • GST

Extension of timeline for implementation of Ship To GSTIN & Voluntary Closure of E-Way Bill functionalities

Extension of timeline for implementation of mandatory "Ship To GSTIN" and Voluntary Closure of E-Way Bill functionalities GSTN Advisory dated…

3 days ago
  • Income Tax

No protective addition required when additions is confirmed in hands of searched person – ITAT

No protective addition required in the hand of a third party when additions have been confirmed in the hands of…

4 days ago
  • arbitration

Limitation u/s 34 of Arbitration Act commences on disposal of application u/s 33 by Arbitral Tribunal – SC

Limitation for filing application u/s 34 of Arbitration Act commence from date on which application u/s 33 is disposed of…

1 week ago