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>Appellate Tribunal Upholds Deduction under Section 80IB(10) with Retroactive Effect</h1> <h3>Income-tax Officer-15(2) (2), Mumbai Versus M/s. Vinamra Builders</h3> Income-tax Officer-15(2) (2), Mumbai Versus M/s. Vinamra Builders - TMI Issues involved:Interpretation of deduction u/s.80IB(10) - retrospective effect of clause (d) of Section 80IB(10) - construction of more commercial area than permitted under clause (d) of sec. 80IB(10).Analysis:1. The primary issue in this appeal was the entitlement to deduction u/s.80IB(10) amounting to Rs.7,68,52,511, which was denied by the Assessing Officer (AO) due to the construction of more commercial area than allowed under clause (d) of sec. 80IB(10).2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] allowed the deduction by relying on the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Brahma Associates and a previous order in a similar case.3. The appellant argued that the issue was covered by the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Brahma Associates and other Tribunal decisions supporting the allowance of deduction in similar circumstances.4. The Bombay High Court held that clause (d) of section 80IB(10) inserted with effect from April 1, 2005, is prospective and not retrospective. The Tribunal's decision to restrict the deduction to a part of the project was not justified.5. The Tribunal in another case emphasized the importance of the time of approval by the local authority and the conditions to be satisfied for deduction under section 80IB(10) at different points in time.6. The Tribunal concluded that the law as it existed when the project was commenced should be applied, and the amendment by the Finance Act, 2005, should not take away vested rights without clear provisions to that effect.7. Following the decisions of the Tribunal and the Bombay High Court, the Appellate Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order deleting the disallowance and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.In conclusion, the issue of deduction u/s.80IB(10) and the retrospective effect of clause (d) of Section 80IB(10) was settled in favor of the assessee based on the interpretation of relevant legal provisions and judicial precedents. The Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of considering the law as it existed when the project commenced and upheld the allowance of deduction based on the prevailing conditions at that time.
TaxTMI 