Assessee, a partnership firm, was engaged in the business of development of residential apartments, real estate and civil contract works. It claimed deduction under section 80-IB(10) in respect of profits derived from a housing \u00a0project. Assessing Officer disallowed claim on the ground that assessee had no direct role in development of project as the project approval and completion certificate were issued in name of one company \u00a0Iswarylaxmi Properties P. Ltd \u00a0and assessee failed to produce books of account, bills and vouchers to verify as to who actually constructed project.\u00a0\u00a0 Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed disallowance, holding that the entire transaction was structured only to divert the benefit of deduction. Tribunal, however, allowed assessee\u2019s appeal, holding that the existence of a joint venture agreement and acceptance of accounts were sufficient to justify claim. On appeal, the Court held that since on date of execution of the joint venture agreement, assessee-firm was not in existence and failed to produce any demonstrable evidence of having made investment or incurred expenditure in project, Assessing Officer was justified in rejecting the claim of deduction. Court held that merely because profits were declared would not mean that assessee would qualify for a deduction, since claim under section 80-IB(10) depended upon actual proof of having undertaken development of\u00a0a housing \u00a0project supported by necessary bills and vouchers. The order of the Tribunal which mechanically accepted assessee\u2019s claim was to be set aside and orders of Assessing Officer and Commissioner (Appeals) restored. \u00a0(AY. 2010-11)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
S. 80IB(10): Housing projects-undertaking-Joint venture development agreement with landowners-Failure to produce document-Interpretation of taxing statutes\u2013Exemptions\u2013Strict construction-Order of Tribunal set aside. [S.260A] <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-60476","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-fJq","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60476","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=60476"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60476\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":60477,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60476\/revisions\/60477"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=60476"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=60476"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=60476"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}