9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 989X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e building was done by M/s. Vaman Estate at its own cost and the assessee did neither invest any money nor developed /constructed the building? (B) Whether the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in directing the AO to allow deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, amounting to Rs. 17,94,05,681/- when the assessee did not assume any risk associated with being a developer and hence was neither land owner nor developer, but mere facilitator? (C) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in directing the AO to allow deduction u/s.80IB(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, amounting to Rs. 17,94,05,681/- ignoring the fact that the commenceme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the Trans Residency Project had been built was not owned by the assessee but by Malad Satguru Sadan CHS Ltd. and that the Conveyance Deed for the said land had been executed in the name of the society in pursuance to the directions of the High Court vide Consent Decree passed on 18.07.1995. The AO also noted that the assessee had been engaged as a 'developer' by the Malad Sadguru Sadan CHS and has made payment on behalf of the society. Based on this, the AO concluded that the assessee was not the owner of the said land. Then the AO proceeded to examine whether the assessee could be considered as a developer. The AO observed that the assessee entered into a Joint Venture Agreement with M/s. Vaman Estate on 28.08.2001 and observed that as p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessing the total income at Rs. 18,12,22,340/-. 5. Respondent-Assessee firm challenged this order before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ['CIT (Appeals)'] by fling an appeal. The appeal was allowed by an order dated 31.01.2013. The CIT (Appeals) allowed the claim of deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act. Aggrieved by this order of CIT (Appeals), revenue preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai ('ITAT'). The ITAT dismissed the appeal by an order dated 26.08.2016. Impugning the order of ITAT, this appeal has been fled. 6. The issue is regarding disallowability of claim of deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act. Revenue had originally raised three points, namely, (a) lack of ownership of l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hts. 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. 9. As regards the other objection that the project was commenced much before the stipulated date of 1.10.1998, Mr.Walve submitted that the assessee had submitted the original Plan to the concerned authorities on 7.11.1996 for which the IOD was granted in 1997, and therefore, even if a subsequent IOD has been obtained, as per the Explanation to section 80IB(10) of the Act, where the approval for the concerned project was given more than once, the date of final approval would be operative dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
