Ownership for housing project deduction can be satisfied by possession, control and risk-bearing, not just formal title.

Deduction under section 80IB(10) was treated as available where the assessee developed the housing project under a development arrangement, obtained possession, controlled construction, bore the financial burden and assumed commercial risk, even though formal title had not passed and approvals stood in the landowner's name. The deeming effect of section 2(47)(v) read with section 53A supported treating the assessee as owner for this limited tax purpose. On these facts, the assessee was not a mere works contractor acting for fixed remuneration on behalf of the landowner, so denial of the deduction on absence of registered ownership was not justified.

---

---

Issues: Whether deduction under section 80IB(10) could be denied on the ground that the assessee was not the registered owner of the land and the approval stood in the name of the landowner, and whether the assessee was merely a works contractor rather than a developer.

Analysis: The housing project was undertaken under development arrangements under which the assessee obtained possession, controlled the project, arranged construction and allied activities, bore the financial burden, and assumed the commercial risk, while the landowner received a fixed consideration. For the limited purpose of section 80IB(10), the assessee could be treated as the owner where possession had been obtained in part performance and the transaction attracted the deeming effect of section 2(47)(v) read with section 53A. The fact that title had not formally passed, or that approvals were issued in the landowner's name, did not by itself defeat the claim. On the facts, the assessee was not a mere contractor working for fixed remuneration on behalf of the landowner.

Conclusion: The deduction under section 80IB(10) was held to be admissible, and the Revenue's challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: For deduction under section 80IB(10), formal ownership of the land is not indispensable where the assessee has possession and dominion over the project, develops it at its own cost and risk, and is not functioning as a mere works contractor; such an arrangement may be treated as sufficient ownership for tax purposes.

---