Search Results For: Housing Project


Shri Umeya Corporation vs. ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 7, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 10, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 80-IB(10): To be the "developer" of a housing project, the assessee has to undertake the entrepreneurship risk in execution of the project. He need not be the owner of the land. S. 40(a)(ia): The amendment is clarificatory and retrospective w.e.f. 01.04.2005

In order to answer the question as to whether the condition precedent for deduction under section 80IB has been satisfied inasmuch as whether or not the assessee is engaged in “developing and building housing projects”, all that is material is whether assessee is taking the entrepreneurship risk in execution of such project. When profits or losses, as a result of execution of project as such, belong predominantly to the assessee, the assessee is obviously taking the entrepreneurship risk qua the project and is, accordingly, eligible for deduction under section 80IB(10) in respect of the same. The assumption of such an entrepreneurship risk is not dependent on ownership of the land

CIT vs. Sarkar Builders (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: May 15, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 19, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 80-IB(10): Restriction on extent of commercial area in “housing project” imposed w.e.f. 1.4.2005 does not apply to housing projects approved before 1.4.2005 even though completed after 1.4.2005

Can it be said that in order to avail the benefit in the assessment years after 1.4.2005, balconies should be removed though these were permitted earlier? Holding so would lead to absurd results as one cannot expect an assessee to comply with a condition that was not a part of the statute when the housing project was approved. The only way to resolve the issue would be to hold that clause (d) is to be treated as inextricably linked with the approval and construction of the housing project and an assessee cannot be called upon to comply with the said condition when it was not in contemplation either of the assessee or even the Legislature, when the housing project was accorded approval by the local authorities

CIT vs. M/s Veena Developers (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL: , , , ,
DATE: April 30, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 2, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 80-IB(10): Law on availability of deduction for "housing projects" explained

There was much debate on the answer given in para (b) above. It was argued by Mr. Gurukrishna Kumar, learned senior counsel, that a project which is cleared as “residential plus commercial” project cannot be treated as housing project and therefore, this direction is contrary to the provisions of Section 80(I)(B)(10) of the Act. However, reading the direction in its entirety and particularly the first sentence thereof, we find that commercial user which is permitted is in the residential units and that too, as per DCR. Examples given before us by the learned counsel for the assessee was that such commercial user to some extent is permitted to the professionals like Doctors, Chartered Accountants, Advocates, etc., in the DCRs itself. Therefore, we clarify that direction (b) is to be read in that context where the project is predominantly housing/ residential project but the commercial activity in the residential units is permitted

Gera Developments Pvt. Ltd vs. JCIT (ITAT Pune)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: December 31, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 7, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
(i) S. 40(a)(ia) disallowance cannot be made if the assessee has not claimed a deduction. (ii) S. 80-IB(10) deduction cannot be denied on the ground that the completion certificate has not been issued by the Municipality if the assessee has completed construction before the due date

Explanation (ii) to section 80IB(10)(a) of the Act prescribes that the date of completion of construction of the housing project shall be taken to be the date on which the completion certificate in respect of such housing project is issued by the local authority

CIT vs. Hermes Developers (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 27, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 28, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2003-04 & 2004-05
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 80IB(10): Super built-up area cannot be equated with built-up area

The concept of “super built-up” area is used by builders to get higher price and the super built-up area includes common area of stair-case and balcony area. Since super built-up area cannot be equated with built-up area it cannot be

CIT vs. Vishal Developers (Gujarat High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 7, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 24, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 80-!B(10): Law laid down in Radhe Developers 341 ITR 483 (Guj) on "works contract" is not affected by the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Larsen and Toubro Limited (2014) 1 SCC 708 and K. Raheja Development Corporation (2005) 141 STC 298

The department argued that the judgement in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Radhe Developers, (2012) 341 ITR 483 (Guj.) which draws a distinction between a “development contract” and a “works contract” and which holds that the benefit of s. 80-IB(10) is

Naresh T. Wadhwani vs. DCIT (ITAT Pune)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 28, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 4, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 80-IB(10)(c): Area of projected terrace (open to sky) is not liable to be included within the meaning of expression “built-up area”

The issue to be decided is as to whether the area of projected terrace (open to sky) is liable to be included within the meaning of expression “built-up area” contained in clause (c) of section 80IB(10) of the Act. (i)

Top