2013 (7) TMI 291

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al ("the Tribunal" for short) dated January 13, 2012 (since reported in ITO v. Keval Construction [2013] 23 ITR (Trib) 820 (Ahd.)). The following questions have been presented for our consideration : "(I) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in allowing the claim of deduction under section 80-IB(10) of the Act and not appreciating the fact th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... The assessee is engaged in the business of developing housing projects. The claim of the assessee under section 80-IB(10) of the Income-tax Act was rejected on the ground that the assessee did not own the premises on which such project was developed. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the claim of the assessee upon which the Revenue approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order ac....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lp for designing and architectural work. The assessee would enroll members and collect charges. The profit or loss which may result from execution of the project belonged entirely to the assessee. It can thus be seen that the assessee had developed the housing project. The fact that the assessee may not have owned the land would be of no consequence." During the course of the assessment, the As....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ficer to grant deduction accordingly. This conclusion of the Tribunal has given rise to questions (IIa) and (IIb) noted above. Ideally since this question had arisen out of the assessee's appeal, as contrasting the first question which had arisen out of the Revenue's appeal against the Tribunal's order, the Revenue should have presented two separate appeals before us. We are, however, not compelli....