Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (12) TMI 697 - AT - Income TaxDeduction u/s.80IB(10) - pro-rata basis in respect of the housing project “Costa Blanca”, Baner, Pune - HELD THAT:- In view of the fact that the Tribunal has decided this issue in the case of the assessee, based on the facts peculiar to it only, for the immediately two preceding years granting deduction u/s.80IB(10) on pro-rata basis, which view has, in principle, been approved by various Hon’ble High courts, respectfully following the precedent, we uphold the impugned order without going into the details of the case relied by the ld. DR, which the ld. AR rightly distinguished. The impugned order is countenanced on this score. Addition towards deemed rent - “Profits and Gains from business or profession” OR “Income from House Property” - AO observed that certain units were unsold with the assessee at the end of the year - AO determined the Annual Letting Value (ALV) of the property and brought the amount to tax, which action was not approved in the first appeal - HELD THAT:- Prior to the amendment, the Tribunal considered this aspect in several cases including Cosmospolis Construction [2018 (9) TMI 1621 - ITAT PUNE] and held that no income from house property can result in respect of unsold flats held by a builder as stock in trade at the year-end. While disposing of the above referred case, the Tribunal observed that income from unsold flats could be considered only under the head “Profits and Gains from business or profession” and not “Income from House Property”. It is but natural that if a particular income is to be taxed under a specific head, the computational mechanism governing that head only can come into play. There is no provision under the head “Profits and Gains from business or profession” which deems the rental income from unsold flats held as stock as ‘Business income’. In the ultimate analysis, the Tribunal eventually deleted the addition. The order of the ld. CIT(A), in deleting the addition made by the AO, does not call for any interference. The same is upheld. Revenue appeal is dismissed.
|