2010 (4) TMI 1160 - AT - Income Tax

Developer status affirmed for deduction under Income Tax Act

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-17 (1), New Delhi. Versus M/s V.R.M. (India) Limited

The Tribunal concluded that the assessee qualified as a developer, not merely a contractor, entitling them to the deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the ... - Issues Involved:1. Eligibility for deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Definition and distinction between 'contractor' and 'developer'.3. Applicability of the explanation inserted to Section 80IB(10) with retrospective effect.Detailed Analysis:1. Eligibility for Deduction under Section 80IB(10):The primary issue revolves around whether the assessee, engaged in the business of building and developing housing projects, is eligible for deduction under Section 80IB(10). The assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 47,03,714/- under this section, which was disallowed by the Assessing Officer (AO) on the grounds that the assessee was merely a contractor and not a developer.2. Definition and Distinction between 'Contractor' and 'Developer':The AO argued that the assessee executed work contracts awarded by the Indian Railway Welfare Organization (IRWO) and Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and did not develop any housing project of its own. The AO emphasized that the terms 'contractor' and 'developer' are distinct and that the assessee was merely a contractor executing the work according to the plans and terms of the contractees (IRWO and DDA).The CIT(A) disagreed with the AO, stating that the terms 'contractor' and 'developer' are not mutually exclusive. The CIT(A) opined that being a contractor does not preclude the assessee from being a developer. It was noted that the scope of work undertaken by the assessee included planning, designing, soil testing, civil works, electrification, infrastructure services, and more, which are typical responsibilities of a developer.3. Applicability of the Explanation Inserted to Section 80IB(10):The Revenue contended that the explanation inserted to Section 80IB(10) with retrospective effect clarified that the deduction does not apply to undertakings executing housing projects as works contracts. The AO relied on this explanation to deny the deduction, asserting that the assessee was merely executing works contracts.The assessee argued that the explanation was not applicable in their case as they were involved in the development and building of housing projects, not merely executing works contracts. The assessee highlighted the comprehensive scope of work, which included planning, designing, and developing infrastructure, indicating their role as a developer.Tribunal's Findings:- The Tribunal examined the nature of the work undertaken by the assessee, including planning, designing, soil testing, civil works, electrification, infrastructure services, and more.- It was observed that the assessee's activities went beyond mere civil construction and included comprehensive development tasks typical of a developer.- The Tribunal noted that the definition of 'developer' involves building on land or improving and increasing the value of buildings, which aligned with the assessee's activities.- The Tribunal concluded that the assessee functioned as a developer and not merely as a contractor, thus eligible for the deduction under Section 80IB(10).- The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the deduction.Conclusion:The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, allowing the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80IB(10). It was determined that the assessee's role encompassed the responsibilities of a developer, making them eligible for the deduction despite the retrospective explanation inserted to the section. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed.