TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (1) TMI 779
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Y. 09-10 on 30.09.2009 declaring total income at Rs. Nil after claiming deduction of Rs. 29,32,078/- u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter the assessment was framed under section 143(3) vide order dated 26.12.2011 and after denying the claim of deduction u/s. 80IB, the total income was determined at Rs. 29,32,080/-. Aggrieved by the order of A.O., Assessee carried the matter before CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the Assessee. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of CIT(A), Assessee is now in appeal before us and has raised the following effective grounds;- 1.The Learned CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts of the appellant's case in confirming the action of Learned A.O. of disallowing the claim of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r before CIT(A). CIT(A) noted that in view of the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Radhe Developers, the Assessee could not be denied deduction under 80IB(10) only for the reason that the Assessee was not the owner of the entire property and the permissions regarding the project were in the name of original owners but he however noted that there was no sale of residential houses by the Assessee in the housing project but there was sale of developed residential plots with construction up to the plinth only. He was therefore of the view that Assessee has decided to sale fully developed residential plots only and complete rest of the work as a contractor of the plot owners. He was therefore of the view that the role of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctor and therefore Assessee was not eligible for deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act. We find that on similar facts, in the case of Narayan Reality Ltd. (supra) the issue was decided in favour of the Assessee by the co-ordinate bench by holding as under:- 8.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. On perusing the order of CIT(A), it is seen that CIT(A) has held that the issue relating to disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act on the ground that Assessee is not the owner of the land and the approval of the project not being in the name of the Assessee is covered in favour of Assessee by the decision of his predecessor in assessees own case for AY 2008- 09. We further find that CIT(A) had disallowed t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tely and has done the construction units under a project agreement/contract, it was submitted that it is a joint activity although the agreement and land sale-deed are executed separately, but for this reason alone, it cannot be said that the assessee is not a builder or a developer. He placed reliance on the following Tribunal decisions:- Sl.No(s) Decision in the case of. ... Reported in.... 1. DCIT vs. SMR Builders (P.)Ltd. (2012)24 Taxman.com 194 (Hyd.) 2. Sky Builders & Developers vs. ITO (2011)14 Taxman.com 78 (Indore) 3. M/s.Vardhman Builders and Developers vs. ITO ITA No.559/Ind/2010 dated 09/05/20 12 4. Raghava Estates Vs. Dy.CIT ITA Nos.248 & 49/Vizag/2009 dated 04/08/2011 5.2. He submitted that in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ownership of the specified unit and registration of flat in semi-finished condition is only to facilitate the convenience of the parties and agreement for development and completion of balance work in relation to the flats is only an incidental formality and this cannot be viewed as fatal to the claim of the assessee for deduction u/s.80-IB(10) of the Act. It was also held by the Tribunal that the entire work from the stage of the commencement to the stage of making the residential unit habitable have been carried out by the assessee only and, therefore, assessee is eligible for deduction u/s.80-IB(l0) of the Act. 9.2. Now we take up the third and last objection of Id.CIT (A) that the assesse had sold the land separately and undertook the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r deduction u/s.80-IB(10) of the Act. Similarly, in the case of Raghava Estates vs. Dy.CIT (supra) on which reliance was placed by the Id.AR of the assessee, the facts are similar. In that case also, the assessee had sold the plots separately and thereafter, constructed the houses and under these facts, the Revenue held that the assessee has to be considered as a mere contractor and, therefore, the assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s.80-IB (10) of the Act. This goes to show that the facts in that case were identical. In that case, it was noted by the Tribunal that the assessee had chosen to register the plot in the name of the buyer on payment of specified amount in order to achieve cost saving and to ensure reliability and thereafte....