Search Results For: 80-IB(10)


Global Estates vs. CIT (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 8, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 20, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 80IB(10)(a): There shall be stay of judgement in Global Reality 379 ITR 107 (MP) where it was held that issuance of completion certificate, after the cut off date by the Local Authority but, mentioning the date of completion of project before the cut off date, does not fulfill the condition specified in clause (a) of Section 80IB (10) read with Explanation (ii) thereunder

We accordingly hold that issuance of completion certificate, after the cut off date by the Local Authority but, mentioning the date of completion of project before the cut off date, does not fulfill the condition specified in clause (a) of Section 80IB (10) read with Explanation (ii) thereunder. We reject the argument of the assessee that the effect of amended clause (a) of sub-Section 10 of Section 80IB, which has come into force with effect from 1st April, 2005, has retrospective effect or that it is unjust in any manner or incapable of compliance at all

Malay N. Sanghvi vs. ITO (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: , ,
DATE: January 31, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 8, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 80-IB(10): The profits of an undertaking eligible for deduction cannot be treated as "inflated" in the absence of material on record to show that there is an arrangement between the eligible unit and the non-eligible unit to generate more than ordinary profits for the eligible unit. The mere fact that there are common customers of both the units does not by itself indicate transfer of profits to the eligible unit

We note the fact that the CIT(A) has rendered a finding that there is nothing on record to indicate that there is any arrangement between the Appellant’s Jammu unit and his wife’s unit at Valsad to generate more than ordinary profits or any transfer of goods and/or services inter se, below the market price, resulting in inflated profits to the Appellant’s Jammu unit. Even before us, nothing has been shown by the Revenue that there is any business transacted between Appellant’s unit at Jammu and his wife’s unit at Valsad which resulted in inflating the profits being earned by the Appellant or that there is any transaction between them. The Tribunal has without considering the validity of the above finding of CIT(A), adopted the test of common customers of both the Appellant’s Jammu unit and his wife’s unit at Valsad, to conclude that profits of the Appellants, are inflated. Common customers by itself in the absence of some arrangement between the parties does not indicate transfer of profits to Appellant’s Jammu unit

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. 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. 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