Section 80IB(10) deduction turns on developer status and completion evidence, not merely approval names or certificate issue date.

Deduction under section 80IB(10) is not to be denied merely because the housing project approval stood in the names of the partner-landowners rather than the firm; the relevant question is whether the assessee actually acted as a developer by undertaking the project and providing the necessary infrastructure, not as a mere works contractor. The note also states that completion must be examined by reference to the completion certificate or corresponding municipal communication and the date of completion reflected there, rather than only the date of physical issue of the certificate. Both issues were therefore treated as requiring fresh factual examination on the statutory conditions for the deduction.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether deduction under section 80IB(10) could be denied merely because the housing project approval stood in the names of the partners instead of the firm, and whether the assessee acted as a developer or only as a contractor; (ii) Whether the claim failed on the ground that the completion certificate was not obtained within time and the project was not shown as completed in accordance with the statutory requirement.

Issue (i): Whether deduction under section 80IB(10) could be denied merely because the housing project approval stood in the names of the partners instead of the firm, and whether the assessee acted as a developer or only as a contractor.

Analysis: Approval in the names of partners who had contributed land to the firm was held not to be a disqualification by itself if the other conditions of section 80IB(10) were satisfied. At the same time, the decisive question was whether the assessee had undertaken development of the housing project, including the requisite infrastructure facilities, and not merely construction as a works contractor. Since the record did not clearly establish the extent of infrastructure development, a fresh factual inquiry was required.

Conclusion: The ground that approval stood in the partners' names was rejected, but the question whether the assessee was a developer entitled to deduction was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

Issue (ii): Whether the claim failed on the ground that the completion certificate was not obtained within time and the project was not shown as completed in accordance with the statutory requirement.

Analysis: The assessee had applied to the municipal authority for a completion certificate, and the certificate was later issued. The controlling consideration was treated as the date of completion reflected in the certificate or corresponding municipal communication, not merely the date on which the certificate was physically issued. The matter therefore required reconsideration in the light of the completion-related documents and the legal position governing section 80IB(10).

Conclusion: The adverse finding on completion was not finally sustained and the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh decision.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent that the assessee's entitlement under section 80IB(10) was not finally denied, and the matter was sent back for reconsideration on the core eligibility issues.

---