SASWAT INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that ownership of land is not necessary for claiming deduction under Section 80IB(10) if the assessee is the developer of the project. Consistency with previous assessment years where the deduction was allowed on similar facts was also considered.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed deduction under Section 80IB for a housing project, but the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) disallowed it, stating the assessee was not the owner of the land. The assessee argued that ownership of land was not a prerequisite for claiming the deduction as a developer.
What were the issues?
Whether ownership of land is a mandatory condition for claiming deduction under Section 80IB(10) for a housing project developer. Whether consistency in allowing deductions in previous assessment years should be maintained.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT1,695 citing193 ITR 321 · 1992 · SC
- CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd.935 citing358 ITR 295 · 2013 · SC · Read judgment
- CIT v. Radhe Developers108 citing341 ITR 403 · 2012 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK
Before: SHRI N.S SAINI
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-
Berhampur Camp: Bhubaneswar, dated 27.10.2014 for the assessment
year 2010-2011. 2. In Ground No.1 of the appeal, the grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer
disallowing deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act for Rs.31,60,090/- on the ground that the assessee is not the owner of the land.
The brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer observed
that the assessee has earned profit of Rs.31,60,090/- from business and has claimed the same as deduction u/s. 80IB, which has resulted in the claim of Nil income. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee
does not own any land nor has developed any property
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 80IB
- D.C.I.T., Circle - 10(1), Kolkata vs M/S. Berger Paints India Ltd., KolkataITA 740/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2026AY 2013-14
- Tasa Foods Private Limited, Bangalore vs DCIT, Circle-7(1)(1), BengaluruITA 2908/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed7 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Uflex Limited, Delhi vs DCIT/ACIT Cen Cir-II, NoidaITTPA 280/DEL/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed21 Aug 2026AY 2022-23
- Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Noida vs Uflex Limited, DelhiITTPA 272/DEL/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed21 Aug 2026AY 2020-21
- Uflex Limited, Pamposh Enclave, Greater… vs DCIT/ACIT Cen Cir-II, NoidaITTPA 260/DEL/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed21 Aug 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl.Dev Construction vs. The Proper OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Abbal Dass Arya vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax CommissionerUttarakhand · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Darbesh Medical Enterprise vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.Calcutta · 15 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetan J. Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary Dept. Of Revenue Ministry Of Finance And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026