Income Tax : Explore recent Supreme Court rulings (2023) on income tax issues. Highlights of key cases, analysis, and implications....
CA, CS, CMA : Discover the major changes in ITR forms for FY 2023-24 (AY 2024-2025). Highlights include new sections for retirement benefit acco...
Income Tax : Tax planning while setting up of a business with reference to location (2021-2022 A.Y, A.Y 2022-2023 , A.Y 2023-2024 and A.Y 202...
Income Tax : Recently, I was approached by a Builder Group seeking a number of clarifications, in respect of the incentive granted U/S 80-IB(10...
Income Tax : Whether nearby cities which are in 25 km from municipality are to be considered at par with metro cities for FY 2016-17? Solution:...
Income Tax : The office of the Comptroller & Auditor General (C & AG) conducts compliance as well as performance audit relating to specific are...
Income Tax : The CBDT did not have any established mechanism to assess the impact of revenue foregone on account of deduction under section 80 ...
Income Tax : Industry chamber Assocham today asked the government to re-introduce the tax exemption scheme to promote affordable housing in the...
Income Tax : Section 80-IB (10) of the Act is aimed at promoting construction of housing projects, so as to address the problem of shortage of ...
Income Tax : Sushanto Roy, CEO, Sahara Prime City, has in a pre-Budget wish list of expectations said: "Given the pent-up demand for affordable...
Income Tax : Deduction under section 80IA(4) couldn't be denied solely due to the delayed filing of Form 10CCB, as the audit report was filed b...
Income Tax : Assessee had given reasons that as per the previous counsel, late Shri R.R. Jain (C.A.) had given advice no separate appeal agains...
Income Tax : The stand of the assessee was that it was not necessary that loss of one industrial undertaking should necessarily be adjusted aga...
Income Tax : ITAT Ahmedabad held that disallowance of deduction claimed under section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act rightly deleted as delay i...
Income Tax : ITAT Kolkata held that duty drawback is part of gross receipts for the purpose of calculation of ‘gross receipts’ under the pr...
Income Tax : It is a settled position that revenue subsidies received from the Government towards reimbursement of cost of production/manufactu...
Income Tax : Notification No. 2/2011 - Income Tax In the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance, Department of Rev...
Income Tax : Notification No. 01/2011- Income Tax In exercise of the powers conferred by clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (10) of section 80-...
Income Tax : Notification No. 67/2010 - Income Tax In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Clause (a) and (b) of sub-section (10)...
Income Tax : Instruction No. 4/2009, dated 30-6-2009 Under sub-section (10) of section 80-IB an undertaking developing and building housing pro...
Going by the definition of ‘housing project’ under section 80HHBA, to mean the construction of ‘any building’ and going by the deduction available under section 80-IB to be hundred per cent of the profits derived in the previous year relevant to the assessment year from such housing project complying with the condition, each block in the larger project by name ‘Agrini’ and ‘Vajra’, has to be taken as an independent building and hence a housing project,
A bare look at section 80-IB(4) would reveal that reference made to ‘profits and gains derived from such industrial undertakings’ and not to ‘profit and gains derived from any business of the industrial undertaking’. A conjoint reading of Section 80-IB(l) and 80-IB(4) would reveal that the expression ‘profits and gains derived from any business’ is to be read as ‘profits and gains derived from the industrial undertaking’
one cannot read any limitation into the expression housing project to mean the residential project alone and that if and when the projects have mixed built-up area of commercial and residential, the question of disallowance will arise only if and when the residential flats are beyond the limit as provided under sub clause (c) of Section 80-IB(10) of the Act and not otherwise.
In our considered opinion, reliance placed by the Revenue on clause (d) to sec. 80-IB(10) of the Act to defeat the assessee’s claim for deduction in the present case is quite misplaced. Firstly, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Brahma Associates (supra) has laid down that the said provision is prospective and not retrospective in nature and therefore, it cannot be applied retrospectively. Further, the plea of the Revenue that only a pure housing project is eligible for deduction is also completely misplaced having regard to the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High court in the case of Brahma Associates (supra).
Sub-rule (3) of rule 18DA itself provides the consequence of violation of sub-rule (2). As per sub-rule (3), if at any stage it is found that any provisions of the Act or the rules have been violated, the prescribed authority specified may withdraw the approval so granted. Therefore, if there is a violation of sub-rule (2), the prescribed authority has to take action against the assessee by withdrawing the approval.
We are not inclined to interfere with the finding of the CIT(A) because on account of violation of conditions prescribed under clause (ia) the implication u/s.40(a) would be that the said amount will not be deducted in computing income chargeable under the head ‘profits and gains of business or profession’. The same will form part of profits and gains of business or profession of the assessee which could be included along with income under all the other heads in the assessee’s gross total income.
As for the excess area constructed, as rightly held by the learned CIT(A), it is for the BBMP to look into the violations if any in the construction of the housing project. That however does not authorize the Assessing Officer to hold that the assessee has not got approval for the housing project OR that the conditions laid down in section 80IB (10) stated violated.
In the present case, therefore, the fact that the assessee had completed the construction well before 31st March, 2008 is not in doubt. It is, of course, true that formally BU permission was not granted by the Municipal Authority by such date. It is equally true that explanation to clause (a) to section 80-IB(10) links the completion of the construction to the BU permission being granted by the local authority.
The ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Jute & Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 120 ITR 921, squarely apply on the facts of the case as the assessee had not fulfilled the conditions precedent provided under section 80-IB(10)(d) as applicable from assessment year 2005-06.
It is settled position of law that where any issue is debatable, it cannot be corrected u/s 154 of the Act. In this regard, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of T.S. Balaram ITO v. Volkart Bros. [1971] 82 ITR 50 is relevant wherein an action taken by Assessing Officer u/s 154 of the Act was found to be illegal.
