Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2010 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (12) TMI 248 - ITAT, CHENNAIDeduction u/s 80-IB(10) - CIT v. Podar Cement Ltd. reported in (1997 -TMI - 5598 - SUPREME Court) and Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT reported in (1999 -TMI - 5760 - SUPREME Court), have been discussed and in which it has been held that in the context of Income-tax Act it has to be held that even though there is no formal conveyance, the concerned party could be considered to be the beneficial owner. The assessee is not only a builder but is also developer of the property in question and thus, she has fulfilled all the conditions laid down in section 80-IB(10) of the Act. The definition of any term or word given in other enactments cannot be imported which dealing with Income Tax matters. No parallels can be drawn, unless, it is so specifically provided in the IT Act itself. The assessee was not 'awarded' any works contract either by any party or State or Central Government. The term used in the Explanation is 'awarded' which has a entirely different connotation. Therefore, the explanation appended to section 80-IB(10) is also not attracted at all. The development done in this case is not on account of a works-contract. – Assessee eligible for exemption u/s 80IAB(10) Addition u/s 2(22)(e) - deemed dividend - Held that: Only a loan, which would include other payments mentioned in section 2(22)(e) can be deemed to be dividend and to that extent of the company has accumulated profits on the date of payment. - the assessee had current account with company and advancing monies to the company as and when required for the purpose of business of the company - this section can be invoked to curtail the misuse of the funds belonging to a private limited company by its shareholder but not when there is a business transaction between the two entities; and funds of the Director were also lying with the company. In this case, assessee's money ranging between 313.72 lakhs to 490.67 lakhs with the Ceebros Property Development Pvt. Ltd., the payment by the same company to Cdeebros Hotels Pvt. Ltd. of ₹ 20,00,000 cannot be treated as intended deemed dividend under section 2(22(e) of the Act. Exemption u/s 80-IB(10) - car parking area - the car parking area is allotted and belonged to buyers alone. It cannot be said to be a private area and has to be treated as common area and has to be excluded from the calculation of built-up residential units particularly keeping in view the agreements and the Tamil Nadu Apartments' Ownership Act. - Exemption u/s 80IB allowed.
|