Case Law Details
SUMMARY OF CASE LAW
The concept of housing project does not mean that there should be the group of the buildings and only then same is called as “Housing Project”
RELEVANT PARAGRAPH
10. The first issue is to be decided before us is the interpretation of the phrase “Housing Project” which is contemplated in Section 80IB (10) of the Act. There is no definition of the term `Housing Project’ given either in the Section 80IB or in the Act itself. But so far as Section 80HHBA which provides for a deduction in respect of profits and gains derived from the execution of the Housing Project which are awarded on the basis of global tender and also aided by the World Bank, deduction is allowed as prescribed in Sub-section (1) to Section 80HHBA. In the said Section, the Legislature had defined the expression “Housing Project” by way of explanation to mean that project for the construction of any building, road, bridge or other structure in any part of India. The concept of Housing Project in Section 80HHBA is much more wider, but so far as Section 80 IB(10) is concerned, as there is no definition of expression “Housing Project”, then definition given in Section 80HHBA will be internal aid to decide whether Housing Project means the project of the group of the buildings or whether it can be the project of a single building also. As per the definition of Housing Project in Section 80HHBA, Housing Project includes construction of “any building”. If the Legislature was desiring to define nature of the Housing Project for the purpose of sec. 80IB(10), then either the specific definition would have been incorporated in the Act or it would have been explained by way of Explanation to Section 80 IB.
11. In our opinion, the concept of Housing Project does not mean that there should be the group of the buildings and only then same is called aS “Housing Project In the present case, it is seen that initially, as per the documents on record i.e. copy of CC, the assessee had planned for four independent buildings, but, so far as Wing `E’ is concerned, that was only planned when the status of the surplus land was converted as `Within Ceiling Limit’ (WCL) and the assessee could get additional FSI for launching Wing `E’. Another Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal has considered somewhat identical situation in the case of Saroj Sales Corporation (supra) and said decision of the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal is more relevant also to decide issue before us. As in the said case, the different units of the building were completed step by step and it was the case of the Department that all the buildings were comprise of one project only. Rejecting the contention of the Revenue, it is held as under:
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Please help on below mentioned query:
Is the case of Vandana Properties v ACIT, appeal no. ITA NO. 1253/MUM/2007, which was decided on April 29, 2009 by ITAT, Mumbai Bench was further appealed in any other court?