Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal / NCLT & Others
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        2014 (9) TMI 1009 - AT - Income Tax

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Tribunal Upholds Deduction for Housing Project 'Ekta Meadows' The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals and upheld the proportionate deduction for the assessee's housing project 'Ekta Meadows' based on the ...
                      Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

                          Tribunal Upholds Deduction for Housing Project 'Ekta Meadows'

                          The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals and upheld the proportionate deduction for the assessee's housing project 'Ekta Meadows' based on the built-up area of the compliant residential units. The decision aligned with the binding precedent set by the jurisdictional High Court in Brahma Associates, emphasizing that the entire project must qualify for deduction under section 80-IB(10).




                          Issues Involved:
                          1. Eligibility of the assessee's housing project 'Ekta Meadows' for deduction under section 80-IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
                          2. Interpretation of section 80-IB(10)(c) regarding the maximum built-up area of residential units.
                          3. Applicability of the decision by the jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Brahma Associates to the current case.

                          Detailed Analysis:

                          Issue 1: Eligibility of the Assessee's Housing Project for Deduction under Section 80-IB(10)
                          The core issue revolves around whether the assessee, an Association of Persons (AOP) comprising M/s. Sankalp Developers, Shri Ashok G. Mohanani, and Shri Vivek A. Mohanani, is eligible for deduction under section 80-IB(10) for its housing project 'Ekta Meadows'. The project was approved by the local authority on 13.05.2005 and completed on 26.03.2009. The assessee claimed a proportionate deduction based on the built-up area of the residential units, while the Revenue argued that the entire project must meet the conditions of section 80-IB(10) to qualify for any deduction.

                          Issue 2: Interpretation of Section 80-IB(10)(c)
                          Section 80-IB(10)(c) stipulates that the maximum built-up area of a residential unit in a housing project should not exceed 1000 sq. ft. for the Mumbai region. The controversy stems from the fact that 35% of the residential units in 'Ekta Meadows' exceeded this limit, while the remaining 65% did not. The assessee restricted its deduction claim to the profits attributable to the compliant units, whereas the Revenue contended that the entire project must meet the condition to qualify for any deduction.

                          Issue 3: Applicability of the Decision in CIT vs. Brahma Associates
                          The Revenue invoked the decision by the jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Brahma Associates, which clarified that the deduction under section 80-IB(10) applies to the entire project as approved by the local authority, and not to parts of it. The Tribunal had previously allowed proportionate deduction in the assessee's own case for the preceding year (A.Y. 2007-08), but this was done without considering the Brahma Associates decision.

                          Analysis:

                          Tribunal's Order for A.Y. 2007-08:
                          The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim for proportionate deduction based on the decision in Bengal Ambuja Housing Development Ltd. vs. DCIT and other similar cases. However, the Tribunal did not consider the binding precedent set by the jurisdictional High Court in Brahma Associates, which mandates that the entire project must qualify for deduction under section 80-IB(10).

                          Decision in Brahma Associates:
                          The High Court in Brahma Associates held that a housing project, as approved by the local authority, is either entirely eligible or ineligible for deduction under section 80-IB(10). The Court rejected the notion of proportionate deduction based on the area of compliant residential units. This decision is binding and directly applicable to the current case.

                          Interpretation of Section 80-IB(10)(c):
                          The Tribunal examined section 80-IB(10)(c) closely and found that the condition regarding the maximum built-up area applies to each residential unit individually, not to the project as a whole. Therefore, the profits attributable to the compliant units should qualify for deduction, while those attributable to non-compliant units should not.

                          Conclusion:
                          The Tribunal, while acknowledging the binding nature of the Brahma Associates decision, concluded that the deduction should be allowed proportionately for the profits attributable to the residential units that meet the condition of section 80-IB(10)(c). The Revenue's appeals were dismissed, and the proportionate deduction was upheld.

                          Order Pronounced:
                          The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals and upheld the proportionate deduction for the assessee's housing project 'Ekta Meadows' based on the built-up area of the compliant residential units. The order was pronounced in the open court on September 12, 2014.
                          Full Summary is available for active users!
                          Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                          Topics

                          ActsIncome Tax
                          No Records Found