Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-2, Rajkot Versus M/s. Shree Jivraj Township, Rajkot

2017 (5) TMI 204 - ITAT RAJKOT

Claim of deduction under Section 80IB(10) - fulfillment of conditions - as per AO assessee was unable to get approval of the housing project by the Municipal Corporation as separate building plans for each of the units - Held that:- As relying on in assessee’s own case for AY 2011-12 and case of B.M. and Brothers [2013 (10) TMI 290 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT ] wherein observed that as the assessee has taken the approval in respect of the housing project more than once and it shall be deemed to have be .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

NTANT MEMBER: This appeal of Revenue for Assessment Year 2010-2011 is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad dated 29.01.2015 vide appeal No.CIT(A)-11/485-R/CC.2/2014- 15, arising out of order u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as the Act ) dated 25.03.2013 framed by the DCIT, Central Circle-2, Rajkot. 2. The solitary grievance of the Revenue is against the order of the ld. CIT(A) in allowing assessee s claim of deductio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ionnaire was issued. Necessary replies with details as called for were furnished. The assessee has undertaken a residential project called Jivraj Township which was commenced during FY 2006-07. The ld. Assessing Officer denied the deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Act by observing that the assessee was unable to get approval of the housing project by the Municipal Corporation as separate building plans for each of the units. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ction 80IB(10) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved, the Revenue is now in appeal before us. 6. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue raised in this appeal is squarely covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee s own case for AY 2011-12 in ITA No.209/Rjt/2015, pronounced on 05.12.2016, wherein the Co-ordinate Bench has dismissed the Revenue s appeal raising similar issue. 7. On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that ld. CIT(A) has mere .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

unsel as referred and relied upon the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee s own case in ITA No.209/Rjt/2015 (supra) for AY 2011-12, where the Co-ordinate Bench has dismissed the Revenue s appeal by observing as follows:- 8. Aggrieved by this, the assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A) and reiterated its claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. The assessee drew the attention of the First Appellate Authority to the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of B.M. and Brothers 42 Taxmann.com 24, The relevant extract of the decision in the case of B.M. and Brothers (supra) is as under:- 5. We have heard Shri Pranav Desai, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-revenue and considered the orders passed by the ITAT as well as CIT(A). It is required to be noted that the layout plan of the 'housing project' named 'Maninagar' at Rajkot came to be approved by the Assistant Tow .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

) while granting deduction under Section 80-IB(10) of the Act with respect to those units approved prior to 01/04/2004 and granted prior to 31/03/2003 has observed in paragraph 3,4 as under: 3.4 I have carefully considered the finding given by the Assessing Officer and the contentions of the AR of the appellant. The main basis of not allowing deduction u/s. 80-IB(10) by the A.O. appears to be the averment of the A.O. that the assessee has taken 69 approvals for construction and therefore it coul .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

B(10) and that is why the claim of deduction was disallowed. However, the above contentions of the A.O. is not correct. Firstly, he has not clearly pointed out which of the conditions laid down u/s 80-IB(10) are not fulfilled by the appellant. As regarding his averment that Section 80-IB(10) uses the word 'approval' and not approvals' for housing project it appears that the A.O. has not properly gone through the other provisions of Section 80- IB(10). The word 'approval' can .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

date of completion of construction of the housing project shall be taken to be the date on which the completion certificate in respect of such housing project is issued by the local authority. Thus, from (I) above, it is clear that more than one approvals has also been envisaged by the Legislature in the Act and that is why it is mentioned 'in a case where the approval in respect of the housing project is obtained more than once..,'. Thus, there is no bar in the Act for obtaining more th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

-IB(10) of the Act because the provisions only speak about the approval or date of completion. As far as the condition of the area of project is concerned it should be more than one acre, here in the case of appellant the project 'Maninagar having 119 units -was constructed on an area of 3.33 Acres. Similarly, the condition regarding built-up area per unit should be less than 1500 sq. ft. and there is no dispute regarding that in the appellant's case also because all the 119 units are ha .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t is that during the year under consideration only 21 units have been sold and in case of all these units- construction was completed before 31/03/2008. However, in my considered opinion, the units construction of which has been completed after 31/03/2008 will not be eligible for benefit u/s. 80- IB(10) in any year. From the copies of the commencement and completion certificate issued by the RMC it is found that the same has been issued in the name of appellant-firm M/s. B.M. & Brothers for .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

aninagar' having composite residential units. The appellant also relied on the decision in the case of Vandana Properties [27 DTR (Mum) 282 (2009)], wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble Tribunal that the approval for separate buildings can be granted and that mil not affect the claim of the assesses u/s. 80-IB (10) of the Act. Moreover, the Hon'ble ITAT, Bangalore in the case of Brigade Enterprises (P) Ltd, (119 ITJ 269) has held that although separate approvals are obtained for d .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the addition made of ₹ 1,45,67,940/- is hereby ordered to be deleted. However, the A.O. is directed to see if the construction of any unit is completed after 31/03/2008 during the year the eligible profit on the sale should be excluded from the 80-IB(10) deduction. Similarly for the assessment year subsequent to the A. Y. 2008-09 also he should keep in mind that whatever units -which are sold after A.Y. 2008-09 and where date of completion is after 31/03/2008 no deduction u/s. 80-IB(10) s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

-IB(10) of the Act with respect to only those units of 'housing project' named 'Maninagar' approved prior to 01/04/2004 and of which constructions have been completed prior to 31/03/2008. It cannot be disputed that the 'housing project' named 'Maninagar' was already approved prior to 01/04/2004 with respect to different units. The 'housing project' was approved prior to 01/04/2004 and constructions that have been put up have been completed prior to 31/03/2 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version