Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (1) TMI 348 - AT - Income TaxEligibility of deduction u/s. 80IB(10) - CIT(A) deleted the disallowance - Held that:- CIT(A) has examined development agreement and observed that as per Clause 1, the possession of the property has been handed over the assessee. As per Clause 2, all materials required for carrying out development would be brought by the assessee. As per Clause 3, all the expenses would be borne by the assessee. Clause 10 authorizes the first authority to sell bungalow to any person. The revenue has not disputed the fact that the entire amount has been demonstrated by the assessee. The possession of the land was given to the assessee. The assessee incurred all cost and was liable for any risk or consequences. The assessee was also authorized to dispose of the sale of bungalow as per his own risk. The aforementioned observation of ld. CIT(A) is not contradicted by the Revenue by placing any contrary material on record. Hence it can be inferred from the facts placed before us that all risk and consequences were borne by the assessee. Under these facts the Assessing Officer was not justified in treating the assessee as merely a contractor. Law is well settled now by the judgment of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Radhe Developers [2011 (12) TMI 248 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT]., that even if the developer of a project is not owner of the land but he bears all risk and consequences he cannot be denied deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the Act. The Assessing Officer has not pointed violation of any other condition(s) embodied u/s.80IB(10) of the Act under these facts. Therefore, in our view, the Assessing Officer was not justified in treating the assessee as merely a work contractor. We do not see any reason to interfere in the order of ld. CIT(A). - Decided in favour of assessee
|