U.K. BUILDERS,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 2, THANE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 344/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 October 2015AY 2010-114 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the commercial area limits were not applicable as the project was approved before their insertion. For the completion certificate, it followed a co-ordinate bench decision that completion certificates are not required for projects approved before April 1, 2005.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a builder, claimed deduction under Section 80IB(10) for a housing project. The AO rejected the claim due to excess commercial area and delayed completion certificate. The CIT(A) upheld the commercial area rejection but allowed the completion certificate issue, stating the project was approved before the time limit was introduced.

What were the issues?

Whether the commercial area of a housing project exceeded the prescribed limit for Section 80IB(10) deduction, and whether a completion certificate was mandatory for projects approved prior to specific dates.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80IB(10)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show 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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “ F” BENCH, MUMBAI

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya
For Respondent: Shri Abhinay Kumbhar
Hearing: 29.10.2015Pronounced: 29.10.2015

Heard together (2 matters)

I.T.A. No.344/Mum/2014
I.T.A. No.1126/Mum/2014

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

1126/Mum/2014 आदेश / O R D E R PER BENCH: These cross appeals are directed against the order dated 05.11.2013 passed by Ld CIT(A)-I, Thane and it relates to the assessment year 2010- 11. The issued urged by both the parties relate to the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 80IB(10) of the Act.

2.

The assessee is a builder and developer and it claimed deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act in respect of a housing project named “U.K. Residential”. The AO noticed that the commercial area of the project had exceeded the maximum limit prescribed in sec. 80IB(10) of the Act. The AO also took the view that the assessee did not obtain completion certificate within the prescribed period. Accordingly, the AO held that the assessee has violated the conditions prescribed in sec. 80IB(10) of the Act and accordingly rejected the claim made u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. The Ld CIT(A) upheld the rejection of claim by concurring with the view of the assessing officer that the commercial area of the project has exceeded the limit prescribed in sec. 80IB(10) of the Act. With regard to the completion certificate, the Ld CIT(A) followed his predecessor’s order, wherein the first appellate authority had held that (a) the assessee had completed the project by the prescribed date and, in fact, applied for completion certificate within that date. (b) Alternatively, the Ld CIT(A) held that the time limit prescribed for completion of the project shall not apply to the assessee, since the project of the assessee was approved prior to the insertion of the provisions prescribing the time limit.

Accordingly, the Ld CIT(A) held that the assessee has complied with the conditions prescribed for completion of the project.

1126/Mum/2014 3. The assessee is in appeal challenging the order of Ld CIT(A) with regard to the rejection of the claim on the ground of violation of the conditions prescribed for commercial area. The revenue is aggrieved by the decision of Ld CIT(A) in holding that the time limit prescribed for completion of the project is not applicable to the assessee, since the project had been approved prior to the insertion of that condition.

4.

We heard the parties and perused the record. With regard to the appeal filed by the assessee, the Ld D.R fairly admitted that the issue urged by the assessee has since been decided in favour of the assessee by the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10 in to 3922/Mum/2012 and ITA No.6557/Mum/2012 dated 20-02-2015, wherein the Tribunal has decided the issue in favour of the assessee by following the decision of jurisdictional Bombay High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Brahma Associates (2011)(333 ITR 289). The Ld A.R further submitted that the decision rendered in the case of Brahma Associates (supra) has since been approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s Sarkar Builders (Civil Appeal No.4476 of 2015 dated 15-05-2015). In view of the above, we set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) on the issue relating to commercial area, since the project has been approved 0n 08-04-2003, i.e., prior to the insertion of the limits for commercial area.

5.

With regard to the appeal filed by the revenue, we notice that the Ld CIT(A) has given a finding that the project has been completed by the assessee prior to the prescribed date. Further we notice that the co- ordinate bench of the Tribunal has held in the assessee’s own case (referred supra) that the completion certificate is not required in respect of projects approved prior to 1.4.2005. We notice that the Co-ordinate bench has followed the decision rendered by Hon’ble Madras High Court in the

More judgments on Section 80IB(10)

All 838 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80IB(10) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →