TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 312X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee had acquired dominion over the land, which he had developed by constructing housing project incurring expenses and also takings risks. Thus, on the point of ownership and dominion of the property as a project, CIT(A) rightly granted relief to the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA. Nos. 1305 & 1306/Ahd/2012 - - - Dated:- 16-5-2016 - Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav, Judicial Member And Shri Manish Borad, Accountant Member For the Revenue : Shri Dileep Kumar, Sr. D.R. For the Assessee : Shri Anil Brahmkshatriya, A.R. ORDER Per Shailendra Kumar Yadav, J. M These two appeals are filed by Revenue against the separate orders of CIT(A)-XV, Ahmedabad, dated 02.04.2012 for A.Ys. 2007-08 2008-09. 2. For A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rial on record. On perusing the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue, we find that Revenue is aggrieved by assessee s claim for deduction of ₹ 21,37,718/- allowed by CIT(A), the tax effect of which is below ₹ 10 lacs. As per the announcement of Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) dated 10.12.2015 (Circular No. 21 of 2015), no Department appeals are to be filed against relief given by ld. CIT(A) before the Income Tax Tribunal unless the tax effect, excluding interest exceeds ₹ 10 lacs and it further states that the instructions will apply retrospectively to the pending appeals. In the present case, since it is an undisputed fact that on the additions which are in dispute, the tax effect is less than ₹ 10 lacs and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ests with the Society. The local Authority had granted permission for development to the Society. Assessee was just a contractor of the land owners constructing residential units and not a developer. 7. Assessee is engaged in the business of developing and constructing housing project in the name of Vrundavan Bunglows for Vrundavan (Naroda) Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. The total income of assessee was finalized at ₹ 1,10,93,292/- u/s.143(3) of the Act in which disallowance of deduction claimed u/s.80IB(10) of the Act of ₹ 1,10,93,292/- was made. 8. Matter was carried before the First Appellate Authority, wherein considering the facts and circumstances of the case, CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee. 9. Same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the project by a Development Agreement with the land owner and construction was done as per the agreement and hence the assessee is merely a contractor for the purposes of construction of the project. iii) The assessee has not sold any unit to the purchaser but the Societies had executed the sale deeds as a seller. This also proves that the assessee was merely a contractor/ agent of the society. iv) As per the Amendment to section 80IB by the Finance Act 2009, a works contractor who executes the work awarded by any person is not eligible for the deduction u/s 80IB. Any person includes the Societies, which is a legal entity. 10.1 Before CIT(A), assessee carefully relied upon the decision of Hon ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
