Case Law Details

Case Name : Commissioner of Income Tax 1 Vs Prathama Developers (Gujarat High Court)
Appeal Number : Tax Appeal No. 128 Of 2013
Date of Judgement/Order : 28/03/2013
Related Assessment Year :


Commissioner of Income-tax


Prathama Developers

TAX APPEAL NO. 128 OF 2013

MARCH  28, 2013


Akil Kureshi, J. 

Revenue is in appeal against judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 20.7.2012 raising following question for our consideration:

“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in upholding the decision of the CIT(A) and thereby deleting the dis allowance under section 80-IB(10) without appreciating that the legal relationship between the assessee firm and the end users of the unit was that of “work contract”?”

2. Tribunal relying on its decision in case of Radhe Developers v. ITO [2008] 23 SOT 420 (Ahd.) held that respondent assessee would be eligible for deduction under section 80-IB(10) of the Act on the housing project development though the assessee may not be the owner of the land. Learned counsel for the Revenue candidly pointed out that such decision in case of Radhe Developers came to upheld by this Court in case of CIT v. Radhe Developers [2012] 341 ITR 403.

3. In the decision in case of Radhe Developers (supra), we had observed as under :

“36. We have noted at some length, the relevant terms and conditions of the development agreements between the assessees and the land owners in case of Radhe Developers. We also noted the terms of the agreement of sale entered into between the parties. Such conditions would immediately reveal that the owner of the land had received part of sale consideration. In lieu thereof he had granted development permission to the assessee. He had also parted with the possession of the land. The development of the land was to be done entirely by the assessee by constructing residential units thereon as per the plans approved by the local authority. It was specified that the assessee would bring in technical knowledge and skill required for execution of such project. The assessee had to pay the fees to the Architects and Engineers. Additionally, assessee was also authorized to appoint any other Architect or Engineer, legal adviser and other professionals. He would appoint Sub-contractor or labour contractor for execution of the work. The assessee was authorized to admit the persons willing to join the scheme. The assessee was authorized to receive the contributions and other deposits and also raise demands from the members for dues and execute such demands through legal procedure. In case, for some reason, the member already admitted is deleted, the assessee would have the full right to include new member in place of outgoing member. He had to make necessary financial arrangements for which purpose he could raise funds from the financial institutions, banks etc. The land owners agreed to give necessary signatures, agreements, and even power of attorney to facilitate the work of the developer. In short, the assessee had undertaken the entire task of development, construction and sale of the housing units to be located on the land belonging to the original land owners. It was also agreed between the parties that the assessee would be entitled to use the full FSI as per the existing rules and regulations. However, in future, rules be amended and additional FSI be available, the assessee would have the full right to use the same also. The sale proceeds of the units allotted by the assessee in favour of the members enrolled would be appropriated towards the land price. Eventually after paying off the land owner and the erstwhile proposed purchasers, the surplus amount would remain with the assessee. Such terms and conditions under which the assessee undertook the development project and took over the possession of the land from the original owner, leaves little doubt in our mind that the assessee had total and complete control over the land in question. The assessee could put the land to use as agreed between the parties. The assessee had full authority and also responsibility to develop the housing project by not only putting up the construction but by carrying out various other activities including enrolling members, accepting members, carrying out modifications engaging professional agencies and so on. Most significantly, the risk element was entirely that of the assessee. The land owner agreed to accept only a fixed price for the land in question. The assessee agreed to pay off the land owner first before appropriating any part of the sale consideration of the housing units for his benefit. In short, assessee took the full risk of executing the housing project and thereby making profit or loss as the case may be. The assessee invested its own funds in the cost of construction and engagement of several agencies. Land owner would receive a fix predetermined amount towards the price of land and was thus insulated against any risk.

37. By no stretch of imagination can it be said that the assessee acted only as a works contractor….”

4. Tax Appeal is dismissed.

Download Judgment/Order

More Under Income Tax

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search Posts by Date

September 2021