TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court allows deductions under Section 80IB(10) for housing project, disallows retrospective application of amendment.</h1> <h3>M/s. Kamat Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Panaji – Goa. Union of India,</h3> M/s. Kamat Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Panaji – Goa. Union of India, - [2020] 429 ITR 609 (Bom) Issues:1. Disallowance of deductions under Section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act based on the sale of flats to the same person/family.2. Justification of refusing the assessee's alternative claim of pro-rata deduction under Section 80IB(10).Analysis:1. The Assessing Officer disallowed deductions under Section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act for a housing project due to non-compliance with the conditions. The project allotted flats to the same individual or family, breaching Section 80IB(10)(f). The Commissioner (Appeals) partly allowed the appeal, directing pro-rata deductions. The ITAT allowed the Revenue's appeal, dismissing the assessee's cross-objections, leading to the present appeal by the assessee on substantial questions of law.2. The appellant argued that the amendment introducing Section 80IB(10)(f) should not apply retrospectively to projects approved before the amendment. They contended that the project in question was approved before the amendment. The appellant also challenged the ITAT's decision on pro-rata deductions, citing relevant case laws supporting their claim.3. The ITAT's decision was defended by the Revenue, stating that Section 80IB(10) does not allow pro-rata deductions and that Section 80IB(10)(f) can have retroactive effect. They relied on court decisions to support their argument. The court held that the allotment of flats before the amendment did not breach the conditions. The court also found the ITAT's reasoning on the plot area to be flawed.4. The court determined that pro-rata deductions can be granted under Section 80IB(10), citing previous judgments. They ruled in favor of the assessee on both substantial questions of law, allowing deductions for the entire housing project except for one flat. The court set aside the ITAT's order and directed the Revenue to allow deductions accordingly. The appeal was partly allowed with no order as to costs.
TaxTMI 