The Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai v. M/s. Mahalakshmi Housing
[Citation -2014-LL-1210-27]

Citation 2014-LL-1210-27
Appellant Name The Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai
Respondent Name M/s. Mahalakshmi Housing
Court HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 10/12/2014
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags construction of housing project
Bot Summary: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee had satisfied the conditions laid down under Section 80IB(10) and is eligible for deduction under Section 80IB(10) 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that assessee cannot be treated only as a contractor as per the terms of the agreement between the owner of the land and the assessee for the purpose of claiming benefit under Section 80IB 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that developer or builder, is eligible for claiming benefit under Section 80IB(10), and assessee can be treated as developer or builder, eligible for claiming benefit under section 80IB(10) 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that assessee need not be a building cum developer for claiming deduction under Section 80IB(10) 3 5. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that assessee need not own the land and then develop cum build the housing project of the purpose of claiming deduction under Section 80IB(10) 6. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that assessee is entitled for deduction under Section 80IB(10) even though the construction work was outsourced to a subcontractor 7. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that assessee is entitled for the deduction under Section 80IB(10) for the housing project with respect to flats with built up area not exceeding 1500 sq.


In High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated: 10.12.2014 Coram Honourable Mr.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR and Honourable Mr.JUSTICE R.KARUPPIAH Tax Case (Appeal) Nos.933 to 936 of 2014 & connected M.Ps. Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai. Appellant in above T.C.(A)s Vs. M/s.Mahalakshmi Housing, No.560, 3H Century Plaza, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. .... Respondent in above T.C(A)s APPEALs under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act against order dated 26.02.2013 made in I.T.A.Nos.2178/Mds/2012, C.O.No.23/ Mds/2013 I.T.A.No.2179/Mds/2012, & C.O.No.24/ Mds/2013 on file of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09. For Appellant : Mr.J.Naraynanaswamy Standing Counsel for Income Tax 2 COMMON JUDGMENT (Delivered by R.SUDHAKAR,J.) above Tax Case (Appeals) are filed by Revenue as against order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal raising following substantial questions of law: "1. Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was right in holding that assessee had satisfied conditions laid down under Section 80IB(10) and is eligible for deduction under Section 80IB(10)? 2. Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was right in holding that assessee cannot be treated only as contractor as per terms of agreement between owner of land and assessee for purpose of claiming benefit under Section 80IB? 3. Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was right in holding that developer or builder, is eligible for claiming benefit under Section 80IB(10), and assessee can be treated as developer or builder, eligible for claiming benefit under section 80IB(10)? 4. Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was right in holding that assessee need not be building cum developer for claiming deduction under Section 80IB(10)? 3 5. Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was right in holding that assessee need not own land and then develop cum build housing project of purpose of claiming deduction under Section 80IB(10)? 6. Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was right in holding that assessee is entitled for deduction under Section 80IB(10) even though construction work was outsourced to subcontractor? 7. Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was right in holding that area of private terrace had to be excluded from built up area of flats in light of definition for arriving at eligible built up area of 1500 sq.ft. for purpose of deduction under Section 80IB(10)? 8. Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was right in holding that assessee is entitled for deduction under Section 80IB(10) for housing project with respect to flats with built up area not exceeding 1500 sq.ft. even though in same housing project, assessee had constructed flats exceeding built up area of 1500 sq.ft. residential flat 9. Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was right in holding that provisions of Section 80IB(10) provide for partial deduction to housing project with respect to flats with built up area of less than 1500 sq.ft. where same project contains flats with built up 4 area exceeding 1500 sq.ft.residential flat?" 2. assessment in above cases relate to assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09. 3. issues involved in above Tax Case (Appeals) that whether assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80IB(10) of Income Tax Act have already been decided by this Court in T.C.(A)Nos.581 & 582 of 2011 and 314 & 315 of 2012 dated 01.11.2012 in favour of assessee and against Revenue holding that for purpose of considering deduction, it is not necessary that assessee, engaged in developing and construction of housing project, should be owner of property. 4. Hence, following above-said decision of this Court, above Tax Case (Appeals) are dismissed and order of Tribunal stands confirmed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.s are also dismissed. Index :Yes/No (R.S.,J) (R.K.,J) Internet:Yes/No 10.12.2014 sl To 1. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "B" Bench, Chennai. 2. 2. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) XII, Chennai 600 034. 3. Income Tax Officer, Business Ward XV(3), Chennai. 5 R.SUDHAKAR,J. AND R.KARUPPIAH,J. sl T.C.(A) Nos.933 to 936 of 2014 & connected M.Ps. 10.12.2014 Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai v. M/s. Mahalakshmi Housing
Report Error