ITAT Upholds Deduction u/s 80IB(10), Remits Certificate Issue for Construction Completion Verification.

The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, allowing the assessee's deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the IT Act. It remitted the completion certificate issue to the AO for verification of construction completion before 31.3.2008. The Tribunal affirmed that profits from partially completed projects could be claimed annually under the percentage completion method. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Completion certificate requirement.
3. Combining of adjacent flats.
4. Separation of residential and commercial projects.
5. Applicability of sub-clause (d) of Section 80IB(10) introduced by Finance Act, 2004.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility for Deduction under Section 80IB(10):
The Revenue appealed against the order allowing the assessee deduction under Section 80IB(10) for the assessment year 2005-06. The primary contention was that the assessee did not fulfill all conditions laid down in Section 80IB(10), specifically regarding the built-up area of shops and flats, and the completion certificate.

2. Completion Certificate Requirement:
The Assessing Officer (AO) argued that the assessee had not received the completion certificate by 31.3.2008, making the claim premature. However, the CIT(A) noted that the assessee had received occupancy certificates for various wings and had applied for the completion certificate before the deadline. The CIT(A) held that the AO's view was legally untenable as profits derived from partially completed projects could not await the final completion certificate.

3. Combining of Adjacent Flats:
The AO pointed out that 8 flats were combined into 4 units exceeding the 1000 sq.ft. limit, violating Section 80IB(10)(c). The CIT(A) found that each flat was sold separately and independently, and any subsequent combination by the buyers did not affect the developer's compliance with the approved plan. The CIT(A) concluded that the assessee could not be disqualified on this ground.

4. Separation of Residential and Commercial Projects:
The AO claimed that the entire project, including the commercial area, was a single project under the assessee's name, thus violating Section 80IB(10)(d). The CIT(A) found sufficient evidence that the residential and commercial projects were developed by two separate entities, with separate agreements and financial arrangements. The CIT(A) held that the assessee's housing project should be delinked from the commercial project for the purpose of deduction under Section 80IB(10).

5. Applicability of Sub-Clause (d) of Section 80IB(10):
The AO applied the amended provisions of Section 80IB(10)(d) effective from 1.4.2005, which limited the built-up area of commercial establishments. The CIT(A) noted that these provisions should not apply retrospectively to projects approved before 1.4.2005. The CIT(A) cited the principle of promissory estoppel and the decision in Saroj Sales Organization v. ITO, concluding that the amended provisions did not apply to the assessee's project.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, allowing the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80IB(10). The Tribunal remitted the issue of the completion certificate to the AO to verify if the construction was completed before 31.3.2008. The Tribunal also held that profits from partially completed projects could be claimed on a year-to-year basis under the percentage completion method, as clarified by CBDT Instruction No. 4 of 2009. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the order was pronounced on 25th June 2010.

---