TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court rules amendment to Income-tax Act 1961 Section 80IB(10)(d) is prospective, favors housing projects</h1> <h3>MANAN CORPORATION Versus ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,</h3> MANAN CORPORATION Versus ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, - [2013] 356 ITR 44 Issues involved:1. Interpretation of Section 80IB(10) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Applicability of the amendment to Section 80IB(10)(d) with effect from 1.4.2005.3. Eligibility for deduction under Section 80IB(10) for projects approved before 1.4.2005.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Interpretation of Section 80IB(10) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:The primary issue is whether the Tribunal correctly interpreted Section 80IB(10) in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 6,84,44,461/- made by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal's decision was based on the amended provision of Section 80IB(10)(d) effective from 1.4.2005, which restricts the built-up area of commercial establishments in housing projects to 5% of the aggregate built-up area or 2000 sq. feet, whichever is less. The appellant argued that this amendment should not apply retrospectively to projects approved before 1.4.2005.2. Applicability of the amendment to Section 80IB(10)(d) with effect from 1.4.2005:The appellant contended that the amendment to Section 80IB(10)(d) effective from 1.4.2005 should not apply to their projects, which were approved before this date. The Tribunal, however, applied the amendment retrospectively, denying the deduction. The appellant relied on the decision of the Special Bench in Brahma Associates vs. JCIT, which held that the amendment is prospective and does not apply to projects approved before 1.4.2005. The High Court agreed with the appellant, stating that neither the assessee nor the local authority could have anticipated future legislative changes when the projects were approved.3. Eligibility for deduction under Section 80IB(10) for projects approved before 1.4.2005:The appellant's projects, Krishna Park and Prashiddhi Project, were approved before 1.4.2005. The High Court noted that the projects complied with the conditions of Section 80IB(10) as they stood before the amendment. The Court emphasized that the amendment should not apply retrospectively, as it would impose new conditions on projects that were compliant with the law at the time of approval. The Court referred to the Bombay High Court's decision in Brahma Associates, which held that the amendment is prospective and not retrospective.Conclusion:The High Court concluded that the amendment to Section 80IB(10)(d) effective from 1.4.2005 is prospective and does not apply to projects approved before this date. The Court held that the Tribunal misinterpreted the law by applying the amendment retrospectively and denying the deduction to the appellant. The Court emphasized that the legislative intent was to facilitate housing projects and that retrospective application of the amendment would lead to absurd results. Consequently, the Court reversed the Tribunal's decision and allowed the appeal in favor of the assessee.
TaxTMI 