2012 (6) TMI 319 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal grants Section 80IB(10) deduction for housing projects, accepting assessee's arguments.

Rahul Construction Co. Versus Income-tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Pune

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, overturning the decisions of the lower authorities. It directed the Assessing Officer to permit the deduction claimed ... Disallowance of deduction u/s. 80IB (10) - housing project constructed by the assessee - condition for completion of the project within four years was not met – Held that:- Cluster of 16 buildings as per the sanctioned layout plan satisfied all the conditions of section 80IB(10) as the first building plan of the assessee was passed before the introduction of this condition in section 80IB(10) and hence, the condition for completion of the project within four years was not applicable in this case - assessee had completed 11 buildings construction on a portion of land occupying more than one acre - no definition of the term 'Project' in section 80IB(10) and the same could not be equated with the entire sanctioned layout - the decision taken on an identical issue under similar facts and circumstances of the case in the appeal for the A.Y. 2006-07 had accepted the assessee is very much entitled to the claimed deduction u/s. 80IB (10) of the Act during the current year – in favour of assessee Issues Involved:1. Disallowance of deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act.2. Interpretation of the term 'housing project' and its implications for eligibility under Section 80IB(10).3. Applicability of the completion timeline for projects approved before the introduction of the completion condition in Section 80IB(10).4. Whether separate clusters of buildings within a larger project can be considered individual projects for the purpose of Section 80IB(10).Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Disallowance of Deduction under Section 80IB(10)The assessee firm, engaged in the business of promoters and builders, claimed a deduction under Section 80IB(10) for Rs. 4,42,18,673/-. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) disallowed the deduction on the grounds that out of 16 buildings in the project, only 11 were completed within the prescribed time limit up to 31st March 2008. The first layout plan was sanctioned by the Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) on 3rd April 2003, and the building plan was sanctioned on 29th April 2003. The A.O. held that the project should have been completed by 31st March 2008, which was not fulfilled by the assessee.2. Interpretation of the Term 'Housing Project'The assessee argued that the term 'housing project' is not defined in the Income Tax Act, and different clusters of buildings should be treated as separate projects. The assessee contended that buildings A1 to A5 and B1 to B6, constructed on separate plots of land exceeding one acre each, should be considered separate projects. The authorities below, however, treated the entire sanctioned layout as a single project, leading to the disallowance of the deduction.3. Applicability of Completion TimelineThe assessee argued that the condition for completing the project within four years should not apply as the first building plan was sanctioned before 1st April 2004. The authorities below disagreed, holding that the completion condition applied to the entire project as per the sanctioned layout plan. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument, noting that the approval of the housing project and the building plan are different concepts.4. Separate Clusters as Individual ProjectsThe Tribunal examined whether the clusters of buildings A1 to A5 and B1 to B6 could be considered separate projects. The Tribunal referred to various case laws, including Saroj Sales Organisation v. ITO, Brigade Enterprises (P) Ltd., and Vandana Properties v. Asstt. CIT, which supported the view that separate clusters within a larger project could be treated as individual projects for the purpose of Section 80IB(10). The Tribunal concluded that the assessee was entitled to the claimed deduction for buildings A1 to A5 and B1 to B6, as they were completed within the prescribed time limit and met the conditions of Section 80IB(10).ConclusionThe Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the orders of the authorities below. The Tribunal directed the A.O. to allow the claimed deduction under Section 80IB(10) for the buildings A1 to A5 in 'Atul Nagar' and buildings B1 to B6 in 'Rahul Nisarg Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.' The Tribunal held that the assessee's interpretation of the term 'housing project' and the applicability of the completion timeline were valid, and the separate clusters of buildings could be considered individual projects for the purpose of Section 80IB(10).