Section 80IB(10) deduction upheld for a housing developer, including project-linked surrendered income treated as eligible business profit.

For deduction under section 80IB(10), a housing-project assessee was treated as a developer, not a works contractor, because the development agreement gave it broad control over planning, funding, memberships and execution at its own risk. Lack of legal title to the land, and approval standing in the society's name, did not by itself defeat the claim where the assessee had possession and substantial development control. Project-linked income surrendered during search as on-money was also treated as business profit derived from the same eligible housing project and remained deductible, with consistency in earlier assessments supporting that treatment.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee was a developer and not a works contractor for the purposes of deduction under section 80IB(10); (ii) whether absence of legal ownership of land and approval in the society's name barred the deduction; (iii) whether additional income surrendered during search as on-money formed part of eligible profits for deduction under section 80IB(10).

Issue (i): Whether the assessee was a developer and not a works contractor for the purposes of deduction under section 80IB(10)

Analysis: The agreement conferred wide development powers on the assessee, including planning, appointing professionals, arranging funds, admitting members, and completing the housing scheme at its own risk. The project was not shown to be a mere execution of construction for a fixed consideration on behalf of another party. The earlier allowances of deduction in scrutiny assessments, read with the same project and unchanged facts, supported the assessee's character as a developer.

Conclusion: The assessee was held to be a developer and not a works contractor.

Issue (ii): Whether absence of legal ownership of land and approval in the society's name barred the deduction

Analysis: Ownership of the land was not treated as a mandatory pre-condition where the assessee had acquired possession and undertaken the project under a development arrangement. The housing project was approved and executed with the assessee's substantial control, and the legal title remaining with the society did not by itself defeat the claim. The consistent judicial approach applied was that benefit under section 80IB(10) depends on the nature of development activity and satisfaction of statutory conditions, not on transfer of land title alone.

Conclusion: The absence of land ownership and approval in the assessee's name did not disentitle the deduction.

Issue (iii): Whether additional income surrendered during search as on-money formed part of eligible profits for deduction under section 80IB(10)

Analysis: The surrendered amount was directly linked to the same housing project and was assessed as business income arising from the project. Since the assessee had no separate source of income and the project itself was eligible, the additional profit disclosed in the return filed under section 153A was treated as part of the profits derived from the housing project. The earlier assessments allowing deduction on the project and the principle of consistency supported the same treatment for the surrendered income.

Conclusion: The additional surrendered income was held eligible for deduction under section 80IB(10).

Final Conclusion: The claim for deduction under section 80IB(10) was upheld on both the original project profit and the additional income surrendered during search, while the appeal was otherwise disposed of by sustaining the rejection of the non-adjudicated and ancillary grounds.

Ratio Decidendi: For deduction under section 80IB(10), a housing-project developer is not required to hold legal title to the land, and project-linked surrendered income that forms part of the same business profits remains eligible when the undertaking otherwise satisfies the statutory conditions.

---