Latest Expert Exchange Queries

GST Demo Service software link: https://ims.go2customer.com
Username: demouser Password: demopass
Get your inventory and invoicing software GST Ready from Binarysoft info@binarysoft.com
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) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: VAT Audit :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: cpt :: empanelment :: due date for vat payment :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: form 3cd :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: VAT RATES :: TDS
 
 
« From the Courts »
 Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi-2 Vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd.
 Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-04 Vs. Il & Fs Energy Development Company Ltd
  GTC Industries Limited vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) (Special Bench)
 Spectrum Coal & Power Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)
  CIT vs. D. K. Garg (Delhi High Court)
 Pr CIT vs. Emirates Technologies Pvt Ltd (Delhi High Court)
  The Citizens Cooperative Society Ltd vs. ACIT (Supreme Court)
 K Raveendranathan Nair vs. CIT (Supreme Court)
 M/s Fiberfill Engineers Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax
 Commissioner Of Income Tax, Del Vs. Mrs. Tara Sinha
 Unitech Wireless (Tamil Nadu) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, New Delhi & Ors.

CIT vs. Radhe Developers (Gujarat High Court)
January, 17th 2012
S. 80-IB (10): Housing Project eligible even if Developer not owner of land
 
The assessee entered into a development agreement with the owner of the land pursuant to which it agreed to develop the land. Deduction u/s 80-IB(10) in respect of the profits arising from the said activity was claimed on the ground that it was derived from the business of undertaking developing and building housing project approved by the local authority. The AO & CIT (A) rejected the claim on the ground that the assessee was not the owner of the land and that the approval of the local authority to, and the completion certificate of, the housing project was given to the owner and not to the assessee. However, the Tribunal allowed the claim. On appeal by the department to the High Court, HELD dismissing the appeal:

S. 80IB(10) allows deduction to an undertaking engaged in the business of developing and constructing housing projects. There is no requirement that the land must be owned by the assessee seeking the deduction. Under the development agreement, the assessee had undertaken the development of housing project at its own risk and cost. The land owner had accepted the full price of the land and had no responsibility. The entire risk of investment and expenditure was that of the assessee. Resultantly, profit and loss also accrued to the assessee alone. The assessee had total and complete control over the land and could put the land to the agreed use. It had full authority and 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. The risk element was entirely that of the assessee. The assessee was a developer in common parlance as well as legal parlance and could not be regarded as only a works contractor. The Explanation to s. 80IB inserted w.r.e.f 1.4.2001 has no application as the project is not a works contract. Further, as the assessee was, in part performance of the agreement to sell the land, given possession and had also carried out the construction work for development of the housing project, it had to be deemed to be the owner u/s 2(47)(v) r.w.s. 53A of the TOP Act even though formal title had not passed (Faqir Chand Gulati vs. Uppal Agencies (2008) 10 SCC 345 distinguished)
 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2017 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Binarysoft Technologies - Our Team

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