9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (11) TMI 1090 - AT - Income TaxDeduction u/s 80IB(10) - joint venture agreement - assessee is to be treated as developer or builder of the project or not - Held that - The assessee contributed the land undertook the developmental activities on the land and thus complied with all other conditions which have to be fulfilled before claiming benefit under section 80IB(10). It is after sale of the built area in terms of section 80IB(10) the assessee is claiming deduction - Therefore in respect of the residential units the persons who undertook this undertaking are entitled to the benefit of section 80IB(10) of the Act in proportion to the share to which they are entitled to in the built up area. Thus assessee is eligible to claim the benefit of deduction under section 80IB(10) - Decision in the case of CIT vs. M/s.Shravanee Constructions 2012 (7) TMI 88 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT followed - Decided in favor of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility of the assessee for deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Treatment of income from the sale of land and flats as capital gains. 3. Risk and responsibility undertaken by the assessee in the construction and development of the housing project. 4. Requirement for filing a revised return to claim new deductions or capital gains. Detailed Analysis: 1. Eligibility of the Assessee for Deduction under Section 80IB(10): The primary issue was whether the assessee qualified for the deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction, arguing that the assessee was not engaged in "developing or building" housing projects. The Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) also held that the assessee was not a developer or builder, as it did not invest money in the project nor share risks and responsibilities. However, the Tribunal disagreed, noting that the assessee initially invested Rs. 1.75 crores to develop the land for construction and entered into a joint venture agreement with M/s. Citilights Properties Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee could be treated as a builder and developer, thus eligible for the benefit under section 80IB(10). 2. Treatment of Income from the Sale of Land and Flats as Capital Gains: The Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) accepted the alternate plea of the assessee, treating the sale proceeds of flats as long-term capital gains. The Revenue challenged this, arguing that the Commissioner erred in allowing the assessee to claim capital gains on the income generated from the transfer of land. The Tribunal upheld the assessee's claim, noting that the assessee had incurred expenses for the sale of flats and had the discretion to negotiate terms and conditions for the sale or lease of their respective constructed areas. 3. Risk and Responsibility Undertaken by the Assessee: The Tribunal found that the assessee did undertake risk and contributed capital for the construction of the building project. The assessee's investment in developing the land and the subsequent joint venture agreement indicated substantial involvement in the project. The Tribunal noted that the clauses in the agreement between the assessee and M/s. Citilights Properties Pvt. Ltd. were for the sake of convenience and to avoid disputes, and should not be interpreted to mean that the assessee did not undertake any developmental activities. 4. Requirement for Filing a Revised Return: The Revenue contended that the assessee needed to file a revised return within the prescribed time limit under section 139(5) of the Act to claim new deductions or capital gains. The Tribunal did not find this argument compelling enough to overturn the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals)' decision to treat the sale proceeds of flats as long-term capital gains. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10, holding that the assessee was eligible to claim the benefit of deduction under section 80IB(10). Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed as infructuous. The Tribunal's decision was based on a comprehensive evaluation of the assessee's involvement in the development of the housing project and the applicable legal precedents. The order was pronounced in the open court on November 22, 2012, in Chennai.
|
