2016 (10) TMI 359 - HC - Income Tax

Tax Tribunal rules in favor of developer in section 80IB (10) deduction case, clarifying project control and area definitions.

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV Versus M/s AMALTAS ASSOCIATES

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV Versus M/s AMALTAS ASSOCIATES - [2016] 389 ITR 175 Issues:1. Interpretation of deduction under section 80IB (10) of the Income Tax Act.2. Determination of developer status in a housing project.3. Consideration of excess built-up area in relation to section 80IB (10) of the Act.Analysis:1. The Tax Appeal was admitted to consider whether the Appellate Tribunal rightly allowed the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80IB (10) of the Income Tax Act. The respondent assessee had filed a return of income for the assessment year 2006-07, claiming deduction under section 80IB for a housing project. The Assessing Officer and Commissioner rejected the claim, arguing that the assessee was a contractor, not a developer, and some units exceeded the maximum permissible built-up area. However, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the assessee was indeed a developer and that the open space attached to a penthouse should not be considered as part of the built-up area.2. The Tribunal's decision was supported by the case law of Radhe Developers and Shakti Corporation, where similar deductions were allowed under section 80IB (10). The High Court had previously confirmed the view of the Tribunal in the Radhe Developers case, emphasizing that the developer had total control over the land, took full responsibility for the project, and bore all associated risks. The Supreme Court later dismissed the appeal against this judgment.3. The Revenue contended that the terms of the agreement in the present case differed from Radhe Developers and that certain units exceeded the permissible built-up area. However, the Tribunal found that the assessee was indeed a developer based on the terms of the agreement with the society, which outlined the assessee's responsibilities in planning, construction, and development. The Tribunal also clarified that the open terrace space in a penthouse should not be considered part of the built-up area, as it did not meet the definition of a balcony as per the Act.4. Section 80(14) of the Act defines built-up area and clarifies that it includes inner measurements of a residential unit at the floor level, projections, and balconies, but excludes common areas shared with other units. The judgment emphasized that the exclusion of common areas does not automatically include any area exclusively assigned to a unit holder. The definition of a balcony was also discussed, highlighting that an open terrace adjoining a penthouse should not be considered a balcony. Consequently, the Court ruled against the Revenue, dismissing the tax appeal.