Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2013 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (11) TMI 110 - AT - Income TaxWhether deduction u/s 80-IB (10) allowed if the undertaking is not approved by local authority – The assessee was a partnership firm engaged in the business of development of land and construction of residential buildings – The assessee was denied deduction on the reason that the land was not in the name of firm - Held that:- Following Radhe Developers [2007 (6) TMI 316 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] – The assessees was entitled to the benefit u/s 80IB(10) even where the title of the lands had not passed on to the assessees and in some cases, the development permissions may also have been obtained in the name of the original land owners - There was a typographical error in the computation sheet and the actual profit was ₹ 26,35,686 and inadvertently the same was mentioned as ₹ 23,35,686 - The books of account are audited and it was not mentioned anywhere that there was undisclosed receipts – Following ITO v. Shakti Corporation [2008 (11) TMI 436 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] - the benefit under 80-IB(10) would be available if the developer has dominant control over the project and has developed the land at its own cost and risk and the benefit would be denied if the assessee had entered into an agreement for a fixed remuneration as a contractor to construct or develop the project on behalf of the land owner - The issue was restored for fresh adjudication. The TDS was not deducted on transport expenses of ₹ 10,93,134 inadvertently as this was the first year of applicability of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act – The assessee should be allowed deduction u/s 80IB(10) on the disallowance of ₹ 10,93,134 by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) - Decided against Revenue.
|