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 project. Assessing Officer disallowed the claim on the ground that assessee had no direct role in the development of the project, as the project approval and completion certificate were issued in the 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 the 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 the claim. On appeal, the Court held that since, on the date of execution of the joint venture agreement, the assessee-firm was not in existence and failed to produce any demonstrable evidence of having made investment or incurred expenditure in the project, the Assessing Officer was justified in rejecting the claim of deduction. Court held that merely because profits were declared would not mean that the assessee would qualify for a deduction, since the claim under section 80-IB(10) depended upon actual proof of having undertaken development of\u00a0a housing project supported by necessary bills and vouchers. The order of the Tribunal, which mechanically accepted the assessee\u2019s claim, was to be set aside and the orders of the 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-Exemptions-Strict 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_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-64028","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-gEI","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64028","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=64028"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64028\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":64029,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64028\/revisions\/64029"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=64028"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=64028"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=64028"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}