2018 (8) TMI 1828 - AT - Income Tax

Assessee qualifies for tax deduction under Section 80IB(10)

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Versus M/s. Nagjua Developers,

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Versus M/s. Nagjua Developers, - TMI Issues Involved:1. Eligibility for deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Detailed Analysis:1. Eligibility for Deduction under Section 80IB(10):The Revenue challenged the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for the Assessment Years (AY) 2007-08 and 2009-10, arguing that the CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee-firm was eligible for deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Arguments by Revenue:The Departmental Representative (DR) contended that the CIT(A) erroneously allowed the deduction, asserting that the assessee did not fulfill the basic conditions for eligibility under Section 80IB(10). The DR argued that the assessee was not the owner of the land and had constructed units exceeding the prescribed limit of 1500 sq. ft., thus violating the conditions for the deduction.Arguments by Assessee:The Assessee’s Representative (AR) countered by citing various judicial precedents, including decisions from the Bombay High Court and the Madras High Court, which supported the claim that ownership of the land was not a prerequisite for the deduction. The AR emphasized that the assessee had maintained separate accounts for flats and row houses and had only claimed deductions for units below 1500 sq. ft.Findings of the Tribunal:The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had meticulously examined the facts and circumstances, including the legal provisions and judicial precedents. The CIT(A) observed that the assessee had complied with all requisite conditions under Section 80IB(10), including maintaining separate accounts for flats and row houses and not claiming deductions for units exceeding 1500 sq. ft.Key Points from CIT(A) Decision:- The CIT(A) highlighted that the assessee had purchased the land and obtained all necessary permissions for developing the housing project.- The CIT(A) referred to judicial precedents, including the Radhe Developers case, which established that ownership of the land was not a condition for claiming the deduction.- The CIT(A) concluded that the assessee had fulfilled all conditions under Section 80IB(10) and was eligible for the deduction on profits derived from the sale of flats.Tribunal’s Conclusion:The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision, agreeing that the assessee had met all conditions for the deduction under Section 80IB(10). The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue’s appeals, affirming that the CIT(A) had correctly interpreted the law and judicial precedents. The Tribunal also noted that the Revenue had failed to provide any substantial evidence to contradict the assessee’s compliance with the conditions for the deduction.Result:Both appeals by the Revenue were dismissed, and the assessee’s eligibility for deduction under Section 80IB(10) was upheld. The Tribunal pronounced its order in the open court on 3rd August 2018.