M/S. SANGAM RIDDHI SIDDHI PROMOTERS & BUILDERS,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 11(4), PUNE
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of deduction under Section 80-IB(10). It found that the assessee failed to prove the land area exceeded 1 acre, as evidenced by the Departmental Valuer's report and actual measurements.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed deduction under Section 80-IB(10) for a housing project. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction, stating the land area was less than 1 acre, a condition for the deduction. The assessee contended that the land area exceeded 1 acre based on Gram Panchayat and Town Planning Authority approvals.
What were the issues?
Whether the housing project's land area exceeded 1 acre to qualify for deduction under Section 80-IB(10) and whether the assessee provided sufficient evidence to prove this.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI
ORDER
PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM:
This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 4, Pune dated 10.03.2017 for the assessment year 2010-11.
The appellant raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1] The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition amounting to Rs. 62,35,490/- made on account of disallowance of deduction claimed u/s. 80-IB(10) of the Act, which is patently illegal and may please be deleted. 2] The Ld. CIT(A) as well as Ld. AO have erred in holding that the conditions prescribed for claiming the deduction u/s. 80-IB(10) of the Act are not fulfilled and therefore the deduction claimed is not admissible. 2.1] The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the land area of the housing project was less than 1 Acre and while doing so he has erred in not considering the sanctioned plan of Gram Panchayat as well as 7/12 extracts which clearly state the land area to be exceeding 1 Acre. 2.2] The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that Town Planning Authority in its certificate dated 08.02.2017 has certified the area of housing project to be more than 1 Acre. 2.3] The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that both Ld. AO as well as valuer appointed u/s. 131(1)(d) of the Act have erred in not considering the land area of access road purchased by the appellant subsequently for which easement rights were available with the assessee right from the beginning. 3] Without prejudice, the Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in holding that the order of Town Planning Authority will prevail over that of Gram Panchayat, even when he himself has accepted Gram Panchayat as competent authority. 4] The appellant reserves its right to add, alter, amend or withdraw any ground of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.”
3. Briefly, the facts of the case are as under : The appellant is a partnership firm engaged in the business of construction, development of residential/commercial project. The return of income for the assessment year 2010-11 was filed on 13.10.2010 declaring total income of Rs.1,18,560/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(4), Pune (‘the Assessing Officer’) vide order dated 25.03.2013 passed us 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) at total income of Rs.63,54,051/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim for deduction of Rs.62,35,490/- claimed u/s 80IB(10) on the ground that the land on 1 acre placing reliance on the report submitted by the Government Registered Valuer and the permission given by Gram Panchayat.
Being aggrieved by the order of assessment, an appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order, while concurring with the assessee that the Gram Panchayat was also a competent authority for sanction of plan, had disallowed the claim of the assessee on the ground that the area of land in which the project was developed, is less than 1 acre and also taking into consideration the fact that subsequently the appellant had purchased land in existing area makes no difference as at the time of permission was sought from the Gram Panchayat being the competent authority for sanction of plan, the area of land is less than 1 acre.
Being aggrieved by the above decision of the ld. CIT(A), the appellant is in appeal before us with the above extracted grounds of appeal
6. When the matter was called on, none appeared on behalf of the appellant-assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. However, the appellant had filed written submission vide letter dated 29.03.2022.
More judgments on Section 80-IB(10)
- D R Corporation, Surat vs ACIT, Circle 1(2), SuratITA 265/SRT/2024[2013-14]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- D R Associates, Surat vs ACIT, Circle 1(2), SuratITA 264/SRT/2024[2013-14]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax… vs Atul Projects India Private Limited, MumbaiITA 5219/MUM/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed1 Sept 2026AY 2022-23
- DCIT-12(2)(2), Mumbai vs M/S.Guruashish Construction Private…ITA 2512/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed10 Aug 2026AY 2012-13
- P V Hemalatha, Kozhikode vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), KozhikodeITA 961/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Jun 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Vinay Singh vs. Union Of INDIAAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Aaradhyam Infrabuilders PVT LTD vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Its Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr The Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026