News Update

CX Provisions of erstwhile Rule 57CC are not same as Rule 6(6) of CCR as former dealt with 'products' while latter deals with excisable 'goods': CESTATE-sealing to become mandatory for exporters from 15 December 2017Treading GST Path XXXVII - GST on HotelsGST Council Meeting's decisions A deferred reactionIncome tax - No Assessee can escape penalty in garb of technicality, if he splits his income receipts and defers same in two subsequent years: HCST - When a person takes part in an activity with reference to his expertise, he is no more part of general public - workshops organized by appellant taxable under Convention service: CESTATCX Since the respondents are merely loan licensee they cannot be treated as manufacturer no registration can be granted Revenue appeal allowed: CESTATRevenue Secretary urges Industry & traders to pass on benefits of lower GST rates to consumersGST - Sushil Modi further sensitises Infosys; EDIT facility for returns to be activated soonGovt sets up Second National Judicial Pay CommissionImpact of Moody's rating upgrade - NHAI projects become less riskyIT infra missing at many Customs stations - CBEC Chairperson asks for speeding up installation of netwrok equipmentsIncome Tax seizes cash to tune of Rs 11 Crore from NSE brokerAustralians support same-sex marriage in national surveyDigital economy to the fore again (See 'TII EDIT')Renewable Energy - Challenge is research in storage technologyICAO Audit finds safety system in placeI-T - Interest received towards late payment following award passed by District Court is taxable income: HCPM reviews performance of key infra projectsCX Blinds are in nature of curtains and cannot be said to become immovable properties when they are mounted on wall: CESTATGST Administration facing acute manpower shortage at Group 'A' level; About 1900 posts remain vacant against over 5800 posts in CBECJD(U) election symbol - EC verdict out; Nitish faction defeats Sharad Yadav splinter groupSEBI bans Swarnabhumi Agritech India & its Directors for four yearsGST - MRP - additional stickers allowed upto Dec 31, 2017CBDT invites comments of stakeholders for conversion of Indian branches of foreign banks to Indian subsidiary companyMoody's upgrade India's credit rating to Baa2CBDT issues transfer order of 7 DC/ACITs
 
I-T - No deduction u/s 80IB(10) is allowable, when area of housing project falls short of minimum requirement of one acre

By TIOL News Service

ALLAHABAD, APRIL 20, 2017: THE ISSUE IS - Whether assessee would be entitled to a deduction u/s 80IB(10) when area of the housing project of assessee falls short of minimum requirement of one acre. NO is the verdict.

Facts of the case:

The assessee is engaged in the business of construction. It is claimed to have undertaken promotion and development of residential housing project named as "Fortuna Apartment" on three contiguous plots of land. Plan of the project was approved by Lucknow Development Authority on 22.6.03. For AY 2005-06, Asseessee filed return and claimed deduction u/s 80IB (10). AO disallowed deduction claimed by u/s 80IB (10). Assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A) who allowed the appeal. Revenue carried the matter in appeal before Tribunal, who, upheld the view taken by CIT (A). This has been challenged, pointing out that first approval was granted by LDA to the building plan of housing project of Assessee, when total area, as on spot, was only 2657 sq. mts. which was less than one acre. Hence mandatory condition of specification of one acre u/s 80IB (10) was not satisfied.

On appeal, the HC held that,

++ one of the essential conditions to attract deduction u/s 80IB (10) is that the housing project approved by local authority must be on the size of a plot of land which has a minimum area of one acre. The area of land for which housing project was approved by LDA on 24.11.2001 was only 2657 sq. mtrs. Rest of land became available to Assessee on and after 15.4.2002 and 14.10.2003, therefore, approval granted by LDA on 24.11.2001 cannot be deemed to be applicable to those plots which became available to Assessee much subsequently. And even second approval when granted on 22.6.2003, total area of 2 plots was only 2657 sq. mtrs. and 52.44 sq. mtrs. which was again less than one acre. Therefore, the Assessee did not satisfy the requirement of area of plot of land being minimum one acre, for purpose of deduction u/s 80IB.

(See 2017-TIOL-760-HC-ALL-IT)


POST YOUR COMMENTS