TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (4) TMI 1253
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rming the action of assessing officer in disallowing deduction of Rs. 59,80,995/- claimed by assessee u/s 80IB(10) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. It is therefore prayed that above addition confirmed by learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) may please be deleted. 4. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal." 2. At the outset of hearing, the ld.Authorised Representative(AR) of the assessee submits that grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2011-12 and 2012-13 in ITA No.2476/AHD/2014 and 238/AHD/2017 respectively. The ld.AR also furnished the copy of decision of Tribunal for the A.Y. 2011-12 and 2012-13 dated 24.10.2019 and 23.09.2020 respectively. The ld.AR for the assessee further submits that there is no variation in fact for the year under consideration. The ld. CIT(A) while confirming the disallowance under section 80IB of the Act, followed the decision of his predecessor for A.Y. 2011-12 and 2012-13, which have been reversed by the Tribunal as stated above. 3. On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Represent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....carried out under the status of Co-ownership". It was justified also stating that for the sake of ; convenience and to comply with the accounting procedure, they have maintained Co-owners project account known as "Hampton Park" with joint books of account and said books reflect; all purchase of construction material, receiving the booking money, making payment towards purchase of construction raw material and also :other administrative expenses etc., In the year end, prof it derived from the said project has been apportioned between Co-owners in their 50:50 ratio and same has been shown in the income tax returns individually. The application for development of the housing project was filed jointly and by assessee and her son and approval of housing project has been granted accordingly. Thus, the assessee and her son are the co-owners of the land and the subsequent development of housing project in the name of "Hampton Park" on the impugned land is also in the status of co-ownership of the assessee and her son. The assessee has developed the housing project and claimed deduction u/s.80IB of the Act in respect of this housing project as co-owner. We Further, notice that the ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....316 ITR 330 (All) wherein it was held that' an AOP is a voluntary association of two or more persons who join together; for a particular purpose and that the forced AOP because of inheriting joint property by way of will or such other circumstances not being voluntary; would not constitute such legatees as AOP. The ratio of above decision is directly applicable to the facts of the case and therefore the interpretation made by the assessee is correct as they cannot be regarded as AOP. We are of the view that the assessee was a builder and developer. It carried out the project for developing the land held by assessee. Assessee received his share of profit from the same and claimed deduction of the her share of profit as per provision of section 80IB (10). The AO declined the benefit of deduction to the assessee on the premise that deduction u/s. 80IB(10) was available only to an undertaking engaged in developing and building house project subject to fulfillment of conditions laid down in subsection (10) of section 80IB. It is settled law that owner of the land as well as developer of the land both were eligible for claiming deduction under section 80IB(10) in respect of housing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... therefore, the status can only be regarded as co-ownership. In support of this contention the assessee; has placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the; case of CIT Vs. Laxmi P Da Sons 316 ITR 330 (All) wherein it was held that' an AOP is a voluntary association of two or more persons who join together; for a particular purpose and that the forced AOP because of inheriting joint property by way of will or such other circumstances not being voluntary; would not constitute such legatees as AOP. The ratio of above decision is directly applicable to the facts of the case and therefore the interpretation made by the assessee is correct as they cannot be regarded as AOP. We are of the view that the assessee was a builder and developer. It carried out the project for developing the land held by assessee. Assessee received his share of profit from the same and claimed deduction of her share of profit as per provision of section 80IB (10). The AO declined the benefit of deduction to the assessee on the premise that deduction u/s. 80IB(10) was available only to an undertaking engaged in developing and building house project subject to fulfillment of co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Nagpal and Others vs. ITO 349 ITR 636 (P & H), Baryyopd Estate Vs. State of Tamil Nadu 215 ITR 0520 (Mad), Brahma; Associates Vs. JCIT 119 ITD 255 (Pune) (SB), Hansa Dalakoti Vs. ACIT in ITA N6.3352/Del/201f (Del) and ITO Vs. S. Venkataiah in ITA No.52 SOT 434 (Hyd) are supports the case of the assessee." 12. Our view is Further, fortified from the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Shrayanee Constructions [2012] 22 taxmann.com 250 (Kar.) wherein it was has held that it is not merely building housing project, which attracts provisions of section 80IB(10), it is developing and building housing project, which attracts said provisions for allowing deduction under section 80IB of the Act. The Hon'ble High Court observed as follows: "8. In terms of the agreement, which are not in dispute, the assessee not only undertook the aforesaid development activities on the land in question, but in fact, he entered into an agreement of sale with the owners of the land, paid the entire consideration but he did not take a registered sale creed in his name. On the contrary, the procedure adopted is he in turn entered into a joint development agreement with the ....