The Commissioner Of Income Taxchennai v. M/S.mahalakshmi Housing

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10.12.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKARANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.KARUPPIAH TAX CASE (APPEAL) NOS.933 TO 936 OF 2014& CONNECTED M.PS. The Commissioner of Income TaxChennai..... Appellant in the above T.C.(A)s Vs. M/s.Mahalakshmi Housing,No.560, 3H Century Plaza,Anna Salai, Teynampet,Chennai – 600 018..... Respondent in the above T.C(A)s APPEALs under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act against theorder dated 26.02.2013 made in I.T.A.Nos.2178/Mds/2012, C.O.No.23/Mds/2013 in (ITA 2178/mds/2012 I.T.A.No.2179/Mds/2012, & C.O.No.24/Mds/2013 in ITA 2179/mds/2012 on the file of the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench for the assessment years 2007-08 and2008-09 preferred against the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-XII, Chennai dated 01.08.2012 for the assessment years 2007-08 and2008-09 in ITA No.131/2009-10 and ITA No.317/2010-11 against theorders of the Income-Tax Officer, Business Ward - XV(3) dt.22.12.2009 and 30.12.2010 for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 respectively. For Appellant : Mr.J.Naraynanaswamy Standing Counsel for Income Tax The above Tax Case (Appeals) are filed by the Revenue as againstthe order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal raising the followingsubstantial questions of law: "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the Tribunal was right in holding that theassessee had satisfied the conditions laid down underSection 80IB(10) and is eligible for deduction underSection 80IB(10)? https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the Tribunal was right in holding that assesseecannot be treated only as a contractor as per the terms ofthe agreement between the owner of the land and theassessee for the purpose of claiming benefit under Section80IB? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the Tribunal was right in holding that developeror builder, is eligible for claiming benefit under Section80IB(10), and assessee can be treated as developer orbuilder, eligible for claiming benefit under section 80IB(10)? 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the Tribunal was right in holding that assesseeneed not be a building cum developer for claiming deductionunder Section 80IB(10)? 5. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the Tribunal was right in holding that assesseeneed not own the land and then develop cum build thehousing project of the purpose of claiming deduction underSection 80IB(10)? 6. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the Tribunal was right in holding that assesseeis entitled for deduction under Section 80IB(10) eventhough the construction work was outsourced to asubcontractor? 7. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the Tribunal was right in holding that area ofprivate terrace had to be excluded from the built up areaof flats in the light of the definition for the arriving atthe eligible built up area of 1500 sq.ft. for the purposeof deduction under Section 80IB(10)? 8. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the Tribunal was right in holding that assesseeis entitled for the deduction under Section 80IB(10) forthe housing project with respect to flats with built uparea not exceeding 1500 sq.ft. even though in the samehousing project, the assessee had constructed flatsexceeding built up area of 1500 sq.ft. residential flat 9. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the Tribunal was right in holding that theprovisions of Section 80IB(10) provide for partialdeduction to the housing project with respect to the flatswith built up area of less than 1500 sq.ft. where the sameproject contains flats with built up area exceeding 1500sq.ft.residential flat?"https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the Tribunal was right in holding that assesseeis entitled for the deduction under Section 80IB(10) forthe housing project with respect to flats with built uparea not exceeding 1500 sq.ft. even though in the samehousing project, the assessee had constructed flatsexceeding built up area of 1500 sq.ft. residential flat 9. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the Tribunal was right in holding that theprovisions of Section 80IB(10) provide for partialdeduction to the housing project with respect to the flatswith built up area of less than 1500 sq.ft. where the sameproject contains flats with built up area exceeding 1500sq.ft.residential flat?"https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The assessment in the above cases relate to the assessmentyears 2007-08 and 2008-09. 3. The issues involved in the above Tax Case (Appeals) thatwhether the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80IB(10)of the Income Tax Act have already been decided by this Court inT.C.(A)Nos.581 & 582 of 2011 and 314 & 315 of 2012 dated 01.11.2012in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue holding that forthe purpose of considering the deduction, it is not necessary thatthe assessee, engaged in developing and construction of housingproject, should be the owner of the property. 4. Hence, following the above-said decision of this Court, theabove Tax Case (Appeals) are dismissed and the order of the Tribunalstands confirmed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.s are alsodismissed. Sd/-Assistant Registrar//True Copy//Sub Assistant RegistrarslTo1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "B" Bench, Chennai.2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) XII, Chennai– 600 034.3. The Income Tax Officer, Business Ward XV(3), Chennai.+ 2 ccs to Mr.J. Narayanasamy, Senior Advocate SR.60570 & 60571T.C.(A) Nos.933 to 936 of 2014& connected M.Ps. EU 12.02.15