Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2021 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (1) TMI 914 - AT - Income TaxDeduction under Section 80IB(10) - non completion of the housing project for claiming deduction - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the assessee made an application on 30 November 2011; therefore, on this ground also the completion date is within the five years limitation - for assessment year 2013 – 14 identically the deduction u/s 80 IB 10 was disallowed by the learned assessing officer however on appeal before the learned and CIT- A allowed the claim of the assessee wide order dated 23 January 2018 - similarly for assessment year 2014 – 15 also the learned CIT appeal allowed the claim of the assessee as per order dated 10 May 2018. However, both these orders are in challenge before the coordinate bench - reasons given therein are required to be considered. An interesting fact has been recorded by the learned CIT – A for assessment year 2013 – 14 that during the financial year 2010 – 11 five of the units got registered in favour of the customers by the appellant company and another 291 units were transferred in financial year 2011 – 12 out of the total 346 units constructed by the assessee. Thus 86% of the total units were registered in the name of the ultimate customers before the end of the financial year 2011 – 12, which is also the cut-off date for getting the completion certificate. Therefore, it was held that that the project of the assessee was completed much before the cut-off date as per the provisions of the act i.e. 31st of March 2012. In view of this, we hold that the date of completion of the project has correctly been claimed that 21st of February 2011 and it is in accordance with the provisions of Section 80 IB (10) - we allow ground number [1] of the appeal of the assessee. Non-fulfillment of the condition laid down as per clause (f) of Section 80 IB (10) - AO has disputed the eligibility to claim deduction u/s 80 IB (10) on the ground that appellant has violated the provisions of clause (f) by allotting more than one residential unit to persons belonging to the same family - AR submitted that only proportionate disallowance could be made - HELD THAT:- This issue is now squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the honourable Bombay High Court in Kamat Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT , [2020 (12) TMI 90 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]. Accordingly, we hold that only proportionate deduction to the extent of violation of the provisions of Section 80 IB (10) (f) can be made with respect to allotment of the units to the family members/relatives of the allottees. Accordingly, ground number 2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed Charging of the interest u/s 234C and 234B - HELD THAT:- According to the proviso to provisions of Section 234C (1) (a) itself provides that nothing contained in the provisions of Section 234C shall apply to any shortfall in the payment of tax due on the returned income whereas such shortfall is on account of Under estimate or failure to estimate the amount of capital gain. Further, the case of the assessee is also supported by the decision of Smt. Premlata Jalani [2003 (7) TMI 62 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] as well as Kumari Kumar Advani. [2016 (7) TMI 1600 - ITAT MUMBAI] assessing officer is directed to compute interest u/s 234C in accordance with the above decisions. As the assessee has earned capital gain as on 30th of March 2012, i.e. before the close of the year, the interest is chargeable u/s 234B of the act. Further, the interest u/s 234B of the act arises only at the close of the financial year, by that time the income from capital gain arose to the assessee and interest u/s 234B is chargeable to tax in accordance with the law. AO is directed to recompute the interest chargeable u/s 234C and 234B of the act.
|