TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the assessee was a developer and builder, and not a mere contractor, so as to qualify for deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. (ii) Whether deduction under section 80IB(10) could be claimed on the basis of work-in-progress and projected profits in the absence of sales and clear accrual of income during the year.
Issue (i): Whether the assessee was a developer and builder, and not a mere contractor, so as to qualify for deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis: The project was undertaken under a development agreement-cum-GPA, and the assessee assumed the entire responsibility for execution, approvals, construction, and sale. Ownership of land was not a statutory condition for claiming deduction under section 80IB(10). The arrangement showed that the land owners received their share through constructed space, while the assessee carried the development risk and controlled the project. The facts therefore supported the characterisation of the assessee as a developer and builder.
Conclusion: The assessee was held to be a developer and builder, and the Revenue's objection on this ground failed.
Issue (ii): Whether deduction under section 80IB(10) could be claimed on the basis of work-in-progress and projected profits in the absence of sales and clear accrual of income during the year.
Analysis: The Court held that income recognition on a long-term project depends on the existence of sale agreements, advances, the extent of work completed, and a reasonable basis for estimating accrual. On the record, there was no satisfactory material showing how income had been booked from work-in-progress, nor any reliable facts as to the extent of agreements, advances, or completion. The project percentage method is accepted in principle, but its application must be supported by ascertainable facts. Because the basis of income recognition was indeterminate, the claim could not be accepted as framed and the matter required fresh examination by the Assessing Officer.
Conclusion: The issue was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on accrual of income and its extent, and the assessee's claim on this aspect was not finally accepted.
Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded on the developer-versus-contractor question, but the dispute relating to accrual of income and the maintainability of deduction on work-in-progress was sent back for reconsideration, leaving the Revenue's appeal partly successful.
Ratio Decidendi: For a housing-project deduction, ownership of land is not decisive if the assessee is the real developer, but income can be recognised only when accrual is supported by sale arrangements, advances, and a reliable measure of project completion.
TaxTMI 
