Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: VAT Audit :: empanelment :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: form 3cd :: cpt :: due date for vat payment :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: TDS :: VAT RATES :: list of goods taxed at 4%
 
 
From the Courts »
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
 M.K.Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-06
 Arshia Ahmed Qureshi Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-21
 CHAUDHARY SKIN TRADING COMPANY Vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-21
  Sushila Devi vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
 Deputy Director Of Income Tax Vs. Virage Logic International
 Commissioner Of Income Tax-3 International Taxation Vs. Virage Logic International India
 Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-06 Vs. Moderate Leasing And Capital Services Pvt. Ltd.
 ITO vs. Vikram A. Pradhan (ITAT Mumbai)

The ACIT (OSD) Circle-9 Ahmedabad Vs. M/s.Shree Parshwanath Construction Corporation 50, Harsiddh Chambers 3rd Floor, Ashram Road Ahmedabad
October, 13th 2014
             ,                               `',  
       IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                " B " BENCH, AHMEDABAD

            ..,                             ,     
    BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And
         SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER

                ./I.T.A.No.1797/Ahd /2011
          (   / Assess ment Year : 2008-09)
 The ACIT (OSD)    / M/s.Shree Parshwanath
 Circle-9          Vs. Construction Corporation
 Ahmedabad               50, Harsiddh Chambers
                         3 rd Floor, Ashram Road
                         Ah medabad
     . /   . / PAN/GIR No. : AARFS 1767 P
    ( /Appellant)   ..         (  / Respondent)

        /  Appellant by :                    Shri Dinesh Singh, Sr.DR
          /Respondent by :                     Shri M.G. Patel, A.R.

         /   Da te o f He a ring                   17/09/2014
         /Da te o f Pr o no unceme nt              10/10/2014

                            / O R D E R

PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER :

      This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the
Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-XV, Ahmedabad (`CIT(A)'
in short) dated 26/05/2011 pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2008-09.
The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

      1) The ld.Commissioner of Income-tax(A)-XV, Ahmedabad has erred
         in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance amounting to
         Rs.1,42,90,342/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s.80-IB(10) of the
         Act.
      2) The ld.Commissioner of Income-tax(A)-XV, Ahmedabad has erred in
         holding that the assessee fulfills the conditions laid down for
                                                     ITA No.1797/Ahd/2011
                      The ACIT vs.M/s.Shree Parshwanath Construction Corpn.
                                                        Asst.Year ­ 2008-09
                                     -2-

          claiming deduction u/s.80IB(10) even when the land was in the name
          of New Amar Park Co-operative housing Society Ltd., which is a
          separate legal entity in the eye of law and the assessee entered into
          the project by a development agreement with the Society. The entire
          responsibility to execute the housing project and abide by the terms
          and conditions of its approval right from the inception of the project
          till its completion rests with the Society. Assessee was just a
          contractor of the land owners constructing 128 residential flats AND
          not a developer.
       3) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the
          Ld.Commissioner of Income-Tax (A)-XV, Ahmedabad ought to have
          upheld the order of the Assessing Officer.
       4) It is therefore, prayed that the order f the Ld.Commissioner of
          Income-tax(A)-XV, Ahmedabad may be set-aside and that of the
          Assessing Officer be restored.


2.     Briefly stated facts are that the case of the assessee was picked up
for scrutiny assessment and the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax
Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was framed vide order
dated 29/11/2010, thereby the Assessing Officer (AO in short)
disallowed the claim of the assessee for deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the
Act.    Against this, assessee filed an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), who
after following the decision of this Tribunal (ITAT Bench `A'
Ahmedabad) rendered in the case of M/s.Shakti Corporation, Baroda in
ITA No.1503/Ahd/2008 in AY 2005-06 allowed the appeal of the
assessee. Now, the Revenue is in appeal before us.


3.     The ld.Sr.DR Shri Dinesh Singh vehemently argued that the order
of the ld.CIT(A) is not justified in deleting the disallowance claimed
u/s.80IB(10) of the Act. He supported the order of the AO and submitted
that the assessee is merely a work contractor, therefore assessee is not
eligible for deduction u/s.80-IB(10) of the Act.
                                                     ITA No.1797/Ahd/2011
                      The ACIT vs.M/s.Shree Parshwanath Construction Corpn.
                                                        Asst.Year ­ 2008-09
                                     -3-

3.1.   On the contrary, ld.counsel for the assessee supported the order of
the ld.CIT(A) and submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the
judgement rendered in the case of CIT vs. Radhe Developers reported at
(2012) 341 ITR 403 :: 204 Taxman 543:: 17 taxmann.com 156 (Guj.) and
followed in other judgements of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the
case of CIT vs. Mahadev Delopers reported at (2013) 214 Taxman 130
(Guj.) and CIT vs. Prathama Developers reported at (2013) 214 Taxman
131 (Guj.).     Further, the ld.counsel for the assessee relied on the
following judgements:
       1.     CIT vs. Vishal Construction Co. reported at (2013) 217
              Taxman 96 (Guj.).
       2.     CIT vs. Shree Ram Construction reported at (2013) 215
              Taxman 17 (Guj.)
       3.     CIT vs. Nikhil Associates reported at (2014) 45
              taxmann.com 278 (Guj.).

3.2.   The ld.counsel for the assessee drew our attention towards to
clauses, 13, 15, 18, 22 and 23 of the Development Agreement.                  He
submitted that a bare perusal of the agreement would demonstrate that all
risks and consequences thereof arising from the project was borne by the
assessee.     He submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the
judgement of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court rendered in the case of Radhe
Developers (supra).




4.     We have heard rival submissions, perused the material available on
record and gone through the orders of the authorities below.         We find
that the AO disallowed the claim of deduction on the basis that the
assessee is not a developer and builder as envisaged u/s.80IB(10) of the
Act because the assessee did not conceptualize and own the project in as
                                                      ITA No.1797/Ahd/2011
                       The ACIT vs.M/s.Shree Parshwanath Construction Corpn.
                                                         Asst.Year ­ 2008-09
                                      -4-

much as the assessee is not the owner of the land and the approval was
not issued to it by the local authority. The project was undertaken by the
assessee on the request of the Society. The assessee is merely confirming
party to the sale-deed and, therefore, the assessee is merely a work
contractor in terms of the amendment in the provisions of section
80IB(10) of the Act. However, the ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition by
observing as under:-

      "5. It is seen that the AO has not disputed that the appellant did
      not fulfill any of the conditions specified in section 80IB(10) from
      clause (a) to (d) with respect to the approvals from the local
      authority, completion of project within the specified time limits,
      one acre of land condition, 1500 sq.ft. built up area condition of
      each unit in the project and that of percentage of construction for
      commercial use. His objection is that the appellant is not the
      owner of the land. This objection of the AO has to be seen in the
      light of the tests laid down by Hon'ble ITAT Bench A Ahmedabad
      decision in the case of M/s.Shakti Corporation, Baroda in ITA
      No.1503/Ahd/2008 in AY 2005-06 wherein Hon'ble ITAT has held
      that where the appellant is found having practically purchased the
      land and has borne the risk of development deduction should be
      allowed. Here the appellant has been found fulfilling the
      conditions laid down in section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act
      and has also been found meeting the tests laid down in Hon'ble
      ITAT Bench A Ahmedabad decision in the case of M/s.Shakti
      Corporation, Baroda in ITA No.1503/Ahd/2008 in AY 2005-06 as
      it had practically purchased the land as clear from the P&L
      account where Rs.73,97,426 has been debited as land cost and
      cheque payments made to New Amar Park Cooperative Housing
      Society from its bank account and it had borne the entire cost and
      risk of developing the project as clear from Clause 15 of the
      Development Agreement, which clearly states that the profit was to
      be of the appellant, therefore in my view it is eligible for deduction
      u/s.80IB(10) and the AO is directed to allow the same."
                                                    ITA No.1797/Ahd/2011
                     The ACIT vs.M/s.Shree Parshwanath Construction Corpn.
                                                       Asst.Year ­ 2008-09
                                    -5-

4.1.   In the present case, the AO has disallowed the claim of deduction
on the basis that the assessee was not the owner of the land and the
approval was in the name of the Society. Moreover, in the sale-deed
executed, the assessee is only a confirming party.      As per clause 13 of
the Development Agreement, the assessee was entitled to enter into an
agreement of booking/allotment with the prospective members, of the
tenements, flat & shops to be constructed, on such terms and conditions
as the developer/builder may deem fit and proper. Further, as per clause
15 of the Development Agreement, the assessee was entitled to the
surplus between:

       (i)    The gross amounts received from the members/purchasers
              towards allotment of the tenements, flats & shops with
              facilities, amenities and services for the exclusive or general
              use, occupation and enjoyment (being the premises of every
              description whatsoever like open land, constructed premises,
              terraces, margin lands parking spaces (constructed, covered
              or open), other amenities, facilities and services or any
              other).
                             and
       (ii)   The total cost consisting of :
              a) All cost and expenses for the acquisition of the said land
                  incurred by the society including the payment towards
                  stamp duty, legal fees and other charges and expenses
                  paid or incurred to be paid for purchase or acquisition
                  thereof and also including the interest paid and/or to be
                  paid on amount borrowed for the said purposes and/or
                  late payment to land owners for the purchase of the said
                  land.
              b) The cost to be incurred for construction, which shall
                  include for labour, material, erection, installation or
                  construction of infrastructures, common amenities
                  facilities and services.
                                                    ITA No.1797/Ahd/2011
                     The ACIT vs.M/s.Shree Parshwanath Construction Corpn.
                                                       Asst.Year ­ 2008-09
                                     -6-

              c) Cost and expenses to be incurred for making arrangement
                 for water supply, drainage, electricity and other facilities
                 and services to be provided in the scheme, which shall
                 include the laying of cables, pipe-lines, other installation
                 charges, security deposits, scrutiny fees or any other
                 amount to be paid or expenses to be incurred in any form
                 whatsoever.
              d) Cost and expenses of every discretion whatsoever to be
                 incurred or paid for obtaining approvals or sanction to
                 the layout plans, construction plans, revised plans from
                 Taluka Panchayat or from any other concerned authority
                 or authorities.
              e) Cost and expenses to be incurred for obtaining all and
                 every permissions, certificates, approvals, sanctions as
                 may be necessary to be obtained from any authority or
                 authorities whatsoever in any of the matters of evolving,
                 implementing and carrying out the scheme or generally
                 under this agreement.
              f) The interest and other charges required to be paid upon
                 finance that may be raised or arranged from any source
                 whatsoever       including      that     raised     by    the
                 Developer/Builder itself, as also upon any investments
                 already made for timely completion of the Project.
              g) Remuneration or charge to be payable to the consultants
                 like Architects, Engineers, Structural Engineers,
                 Contractors,      Supervisors,     Drainage      Consultants,
                 Electrical Consultants, Project Consultants etc. in any
                 form whatsoever.
              h) All costs, charges and expenses of every discretion
                 whatsoever to be paid or incurred in any of the matters
                 relating to the scheme not specifically provided herein or
                 bear the deficit if any in case total cost as per clause.
       (ii)   above exceeds the gross receipts from members / purchasers
              as per clause (i) above.

4.2.   Clauses 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 22 & 23 are as under:-
       16. The Developer/Builder shall be entitled to advertise the
       scheme of construction of residential & commercial complexes on
                                             ITA No.1797/Ahd/2011
              The ACIT vs.M/s.Shree Parshwanath Construction Corpn.
                                                Asst.Year ­ 2008-09
                             -7-

the said property and shall be entitled to display sign-boards, neon
signs and such advertisements on the said property.

17. All the capital investments like construction equipments etc.
shall be made by the Developer/Builder only and the same shall be
maintained by the Developer/Builder at its own cost.

18. The construction that may be raised as a part of the
development of the said property shall be the absolute property of
the Developer/Builder herein and the Developer/Builder shall
further be entitled to booking/allotment/disposal of the same in a
manner as it may be deemed fit and proper.

19. It has been agreed that all outgoing and Municipal taxes in
respect of the said property authorized to be developed herein and
in respect of the construction that may be raised thereon shall be
borne and paid by the Developer/Builder herein only.

20. It has been agreed that the person...... be member and at
the recommendation of the Developer/Builder herein, the Society
shall recognize all such persons as members of the Society to/for
whom the tenements, flats & shops to be constructed by the
Developer/Builder are allotted/booked.

21. It is hereby agreed that the Developer/Builder shall covenant
as follows, with the person/s to/for whom the tenements, flats &
shops to be constructed on the said property are allotted/booked.

a) That such person shall become member of the Society on the
   recommendation of the Developer/Builder herein.
b) That such person shall be liable to observe and perform the
   bye-laws, rules and regulations of the Society and shall be
   bound by the same.
c) That such persons shall be enrolled as member of the Society
   only after full payment is made and the scheme is completed.
                                                   ITA No.1797/Ahd/2011
                    The ACIT vs.M/s.Shree Parshwanath Construction Corpn.
                                                      Asst.Year ­ 2008-09
                                   -8-

       22.The Society hereby grant to the Developer/Builder exclusive
          right to book/allot for/to any person, firms or companies for
          such consideration as the Developer/Builder may think fit and
          proper any tenement, flat & shop to be constructed on the said
          property and the Developer/Builder shall be entitled to receive
          from them the amount of price/value of construction,
          contribution towards land price, Legal expenses, maintenance
          deposit and other expenses.

       23. It has been specifically agreed by and between the parties that
          in view of the fact that all necessary finance for
          development/construction of the said property has been agreed
          to be arranged by the Developer/Builder and therefore, under
          no circumstance, this Agreement shall be cancelled and/or shall
          liable to be cancelled and shall remain in force for the sole
          benefit of the Developer/Builder for the Development of the
          said property.

4.3.   From the aforesaid terms and conditions, it is clear that as per
Development Agreement, the assessee had to incur and bear all expenses
of the development of the land, and it had right to allot possession of
constructed units to members of housing project after developing housing
project. Therefore, in our considered view, the issue is squarely covered
by the judgement of Hon 'ble Gujarat High Court rendered in the case of
CIT vs. Radhe Developers reported at (2012) 341 ITR 403.                The
jdugement of Hon 'ble Gujarat High Court was followed by the
subsequent judgement of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court rendered in the
case of Cit vs. Shree Ram Construction reported at (2013) 215 Taxman
17 (Guj.), wherein the High Court has observed as under:-


       "2. Having perused the orders on record with the assistance of
       learned counsel for the Revenue, we notice that the issue pertains
       to deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act. The assessee had
                                            ITA No.1797/Ahd/2011
             The ACIT vs.M/s.Shree Parshwanath Construction Corpn.
                                               Asst.Year ­ 2008-09
                            -9-

claimed to have developed housing project and claimed such
deduction. Revenue however, held belief that assessee was not the
owner of the land and had developed the housing project for and
on behalf of some other person. Tribunal relied on its own
previous decision in case of Radhe Developers vs. ITO (2008) 23
SOT 420 (Ahd.) and ruled in favour of the assessee. Such decision
of the Tribunal was challenged by the Revenue before this Court.
In the judgement in case of CIT vs. Radhe Developers (2012) 341
ITR 403/204 Taxman 543/17 taxmann.com 156(Guj.), the High
Court had rejected the Revenue's appeals making following
observations:




      "36. We have noted at some length, the relevant terms and
      conditions of the development agreements between the
      assessees and the land owners in case of Radhe Developers.
      We also noted the terms of the agreement of sale entered
      into between the parties.          Such conditions would
      immediately reveal that the owner fo the land had received
      part of sale consideration. In lieu thereof he had granted
      development permission to the assessee. He had also parted
      with the possession of the land. The development of the land
      was to be done entirely by the assessee by constructing
      residential units thereon as per the plans approved by the
      local authority. It was specified that the assessee would
      bring in technical knowledge and skill required for
      execution of such project. The assessee had to pay the fees
      to the Architects and Engineers. Additionally, assessee was
      also authorized to appoint any other Architect or Engineer,
      legal adviser and other professionals. He would appoint
      Sub-contractor or labour contractor for execution of the
      work. The assessee was authorized to admit the persons
      willing to join the scheme. The assessee was authorized to
      receive the contributions and other deposits and also raise
      demands from the members for dues and execute such
      demands through legal procedure. In case, for some reason,
      the member already admitted is deleted, the a would have
      the full right to include new member in place of outgoing
      member. He had to make necessary financial arrangements
                                      ITA No.1797/Ahd/2011
       The ACIT vs.M/s.Shree Parshwanath Construction Corpn.
                                         Asst.Year ­ 2008-09
                      - 10 -

for which purpose he could raise funds from the financial
institutions, banks, etc. The land owners agreed to give
necessary signatures, agreements, and even power of
attorney to facilitate the work of the developer. In short, the
assessee had undertaken the entire task of development,
construction and sale of the housing units to be located on
the land belonging to the original land owners. It was also
agreed between the parties that the assessee would be
entitled to use the the full FSI as per the existing rules and
regulations. However, in future, rules be amended and
additional FSI be available, the assessee would have the full
right to use the same also. The sale proceeds of the units
allotted by the assessee in favour of the members enrolled
would be appropriated towards the land price. Eventually
after paying off the land owner and the erstwhile proposed
purchasers, the surplus amount would remain with the
assessee. Such terms and conditions under which the
assessee undertook the development project and took over
the possession of the land from the original owner, leaves
little doubt in our mind that the assessee had total and
complete control over the land in question. The assessee
could put the land to use as agreed between the parties. The
assessee had full authority and also responsibility to develop
the housing project by not only putting up the construction
but by carrying out various other activities including
enrolling members, accepting members, carrying out
modifications engaging professional agencies and so on.
Most significantly, the risk element was entirely that of the
assessee. The land owner agreed to accept only a fixed
price for the land in question. The assessee agreed to pay
off the land owner first before appropriating any part of the
sale consideration of the housing units for his benefit. In
short, assessee took the full risk of executing the housing
project and thereby making profit or loss as the case may
be. The assessee invested its own funds in the cost of
construction and engagement of several agencies. Land
owner would receive a fix predetermined amount towards
the price of land and was thus insulated against any risk.
                                                        ITA No.1797/Ahd/2011
                         The ACIT vs.M/s.Shree Parshwanath Construction Corpn.
                                                           Asst.Year ­ 2008-09
                                         - 11 -

         3. We are informed that such decision of this Court was
         challenged before the Supreme Court in case of ITO v. Shree
         Gokul Corporation and SLP came to be dismissed by order dated
         27.7.2012.

         4. Under the circumstances, this Tax Appeal is also dismissed."

4.4.     Therefore, respectfully following the judgement of Hon'ble
Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Radhe Developers(supra), we
do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld.CIT(A), same is hereby
upheld. Thus, grounds raised by the Revenue are rejected.
5.       In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
       Order pronounced in Court on the date mentioned hereinabove at caption page


                  Sd/-                                            Sd/-
             (..)                                              ( )
                                                                  
        ( N.S. SAINI )                                    ( KUL BHARAT )
     ACCOUNTANT MEMBER                                  JUDICIAL MEMBER

Ahmedabad;           Dated         10 /10/2014

 .., . ../T.C. NAIR, Sr. PS


                  /Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1.      / The Appellant
2.         / The Respondent.
3.          / Concerned CIT
4.       () / The CIT(A)-XV, Ahmedabad
5.                ,     ,  / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad

6.       / Guard file.
                                                                     / BY ORDER,

                                //True Copy//

                                                   /  (Dy./Asstt.Registrar)
                                                 ,  / ITAT, Ahmedabad

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Binarysoft Technologies - Achievements

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions