Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2022 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 989 - HC - Income TaxDeduction u/s 80IB(10) - lack of ownership of land on which the project was constructed - HELD THAT:- ITAT has given a finding of fact which is not disputed inasmuch as the ITAT has observed that respondent through, its partner one Liaq Ahmed, has been involved in the project right from the beginning with the signing of the Principal Agreement and primary acquisition of the development rights for the land in question. AO has not even disputed that Intimation of Disapproval (‘IOD’) issued by the Municipal Corporation was in the name of assessee. So also the Commencement Certificate (CC). All tax related to the land in question were paid by the assessee from 1998 onwards. It is also noted that assessee has even made payment for the development rights. What the AO has missed out is unless respondent had any role in the development of the project, the joint venture partner would not agree to share 50% profit in the project with the assessee. Therefore, on this issue, we are in agreement with ITAT. Project was approved and commenced before the stipulated date of 01.10.1998 - ITAT has once again come to a finding of fact that the project, as completed, was different from the project for which initial approval had been obtained. It is true that the original Plan which was submitted and for which IOD was granted, was in 1997. The life of the IOD once granted as per the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 is four years. This finding has not been disputed by Mr.Walve or appellant. The original Lay-out Plan became invalid after 7.01.2001. The assessee applied for IOD for the second time on 22.11.2001 and was granted permission on 21.07.2002. The ITAT has come to a conclusion on facts, which is also not disputed, that the second project proposal was for only three buildings as against the four for which the permission was sought earlier and IOD for different building was granted on different dates. The ITAT has concluded that therefore the project for which permission was granted on 24.07.2002 was not the same as that, for which the IOD has lapsed in 2001. In our view, we do not find that the ITAT has committed any perversity or applied incorrect principles to the given facts
|