Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Deduction allowed under section 80IB(10) for developer selling land in plots</h1> <h3>Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bharuch Versus M/s. Samruddhi Developers</h3> The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the deduction u/s. 80IB(10) for the assessee for AY 2009-10. The Tribunal found that ownership of land ... Deduction u/s. 80IB (10) - Denial of deduction as assessee treated as contractor of the unit owner - there were two separate agreements for sale of plot and construction on the plot and there was no sale of constructed house and thus, assessee had merely acted as a contractor of the unit owner in respect of construction of house and therefore, not entitled to deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act because the sub section does not apply to a developer of a plotting scheme or a contractor - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the assessee by cutting land into independent plots on different sized sold the land thereafter by entering into an independent construction agreement with individual plot owners undertook construction work. AO held that after selling plots the assessee seized to having a status of developer of the project and therefore, became ineligible for claiming deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act. But these contentions of the AO does not stand on the merits in view of the decisions of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court as respectfully noted above. The conclusion drawn by the ld. CIT(A) is quite correct and we are unable to see any perversity or any other valid reason to interfere with the same. Thus, the same is confirmed. Accordingly, sole ground of the Revenue being devoid of merits is dismissed. Issues:Challenge to order of CIT(A) on disallowance of deduction u/s. 80IB(10) for AY 2009-10.Analysis:The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order deleting disallowance of Rs.1,52,37,149 claimed as deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the IT Act for the assessment year 2009-10. The Revenue contended that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction as there were separate agreements for sale of plot and construction, making the assessee a contractor, not eligible for the deduction. The Departmental Representative argued in support of the assessment order, urging the Tribunal to set aside the CIT(A)'s decision.The Assessee's Representative cited precedents from the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and ITAT Ahmedabad to support the claim that ownership of land was not a prerequisite for claiming deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act. The representative highlighted decisions in cases such as CIT vs. Vishal Construction Company and CIT vs. Mahadev Developers to support the contention that ownership of land was not a condition precedent for developing a housing project and claiming the deduction.Upon careful consideration of the arguments, the Tribunal analyzed the CIT(A)'s order and various decisions of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court. The Tribunal noted that the High Court rulings established that ownership of land was not a precondition for claiming the deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act. Referring to the ITAT decisions in similar cases, the Tribunal held that if an assessee sold land separately and undertook construction work on the land under separate contracts, the assessee qualified as a developer, making them eligible for the deduction.In this case, the assessee sold land in independent plots and entered into separate construction agreements with individual plot owners for construction work. The AO contended that after selling the plots, the assessee lost the status of a developer, rendering them ineligible for the deduction. However, the Tribunal found the AO's contentions unsubstantiated in light of the High Court decisions. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s conclusion, finding no reason to interfere with it, and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, confirming the allowance of the deduction u/s. 80IB(10) for the assessee.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the decision to allow the deduction u/s. 80IB(10) for the assessee for the assessment year 2009-10.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found