Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

I.T.A No. 509.Ind/2010, A.Y 2004-2005 and I.T.A No. 510.Ind/2010, A.Y 2005-2006

Attorney(S)

Assessee by: Shri H.P Verma & Shri Girish Agrawal
Department by: Shri Arun Dewan Sr. DR

Judges

Joginder Singh, J.M
R.C Sharma, A.M

Acts

sub-section (10) of section 80IB by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004
Finance Act 2000 w.e.f 1.4.2001 and Finance Act 2003
u/s 80IB (10) of the Income Tax Act.2.
u/s. 80IB (10) of the Income Tax Act
FINANCE NO 2 ACT 2004
2) Act, 2004

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Tribunal Opinion (Joginder Singh, J.M.)

Factual and Procedural Background

The assessee appealed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dated 30 March 2010 concerning reassessment and assessment made under sections 147/143(3) of the Income-tax Act for assessment years (AY) 2004-2005 and 2005-2006. The grievance relates to disallowance of the deduction claimed under section 80IB(10) for a housing project named "Priyadarshini Nilayam" in Bhopal.

The project was approved by the local authority in December 2002 (the opinion records the approval date variously as 2.12.2002 and 4.12.2002 in different passages). The Assessing Officer (AO), during assessment proceedings and after receiving information from subsequent AY 2006-2007, observed that the project had not been completed by 31 March 2008 and therefore concluded the assessee was not eligible for the deduction under section 80IB(10). Notices under section 148 were issued on 27.02.2009 (AY 2004-2005) and 27.03.2009 (AY 2005-2006) and assessments were reopened and completed under section 147/143(3). The CIT(A) sustained the reassessments and confirmed disallowance for the years in question. The Tribunal considered appeals filed by the assessee against those orders.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether initiation of reassessment proceedings under section 147 by issuing notice under section 148 was valid for AY 2004-2005 and AY 2005-2006.
Whether the assessee was entitled to claim deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Income-tax Act for AY 2004-2005 and AY 2005-2006 (in particular, whether the conditions introduced by Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004 effective 01.04.2005 — including completion within specified time and requirement of a completion certificate — applied to these years).

Arguments of the Parties

Assessee's Arguments

The reassessment under section 147/148 was not valid — the AO had no "reason to believe" income had escaped assessment; the reopening was a change of opinion since all material facts were disclosed in the original return and accompanying audit reports (Form 44AB and Form 10CCB).
The assessee had commenced the project in financial year 2002-2003 and, as at the relevant earlier statutory position (pre-amendment), there was no requirement to obtain a completion certificate from the local authority; therefore the amended conditions (introduced w.e.f. 01.04.2005) could not be applied retrospectively to deny relief for AY 2004-2005.
The assessee contended that construction was completed before 31.03.2008: possession had been given to customers, customers had taken possession and paid municipal property tax, applied for electricity connections and paid electricity bills — these facts were relied upon to show completion by the specified date.
Reliance was placed upon a decision of the Delhi Bench in Ansal Properties & Industries Ltd., 22 SOT 44, for the proposition that section 80IB(10) is beneficial and should be interpreted liberally in favour of the assessee.
Monetary claims disallowed were specifically pleaded: Rs. 39,60,088 (AY 2004-2005) and Rs. 9,24,137 (AY 2005-2006).

Revenue's / Assessing Officer's Arguments

The AO obtained tangible information during assessment of subsequent AY 2006-2007 that the project was not completed within the specified period (by 31.03.2008), and therefore recorded reasons under section 148(2) to reopen AY 2004-2005 and AY 2005-2006.
Following amendment by Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004 (effective 01.04.2005), a completion certificate from the local authority (being the date of completion as per the Explanation) is a pre-condition for claiming deduction under section 80IB(10); the assessee had not obtained such completion certificate before the relevant date and hence was not eligible.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Rakesh Jhaveri (verdict cited)	Processing of return under section 143(1)(a) is not an "assessment" and does not show the AO applied his mind to the facts.	The Tribunal used this principle to support the view that processing under section 143(1) cannot preclude reopening; this helped the court conclude reopening (where appropriate reasons exist) was valid for the years in question.
State of Kerla v. Lex George, (2004) 271 ITR 290 (SC)	Where rates/exemptions are modified (reducing exemption), the effect can be given in the next succeeding year; retrospective effect is not to be presumed unless specifically provided.	The Tribunal relied on this decision to reinforce that an amendment to substantive law (Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004 w.e.f. 01.04.2005) should be understood as having prospective operation unless retrospective effect is expressly provided; used it to hold the completion-certificate requirement could not be applied to AY 2004-2005.
Govind Ganga Saran v. CST, (155 ITR 144) (SC)	One of the authorities considered on the question of retrospective operation of amendments.	Referenced (as part of the jurisprudence considered in Lex George) to support the Tribunal's approach that substantive amendments are not retrospective unless explicitly stated.
Good Year India Ltd. v. State, (188 ITR 402) (SC)	One of the authorities considered on retrospective application of statutes.	Referenced as part of the judicial material considered on the retrospective/prospective operation of statutory amendments.
Keshave Ram Ind. & Cotton Mills v. CWT, (59 ITR 767) (SC)	One of the authorities considered on retrospective effect.	Referenced to support the general proposition that retrospective effect is not to be presumed.
Reliance & Jute Ind. Ltd. v. CIT, (120 ITR 921) (SC)	One of the authorities considered in relation to retrospective operation.	Referenced by the Tribunal as part of the body of decisions indicating that retrospective operation requires clear legislative intention.
Tea State India Ltd. v. CIT, (241 ITR 778) (Mad)	One of the authorities considered in the context of retrospective amendments.	Used to illustrate the settled approach to retrospective application; cited by the Tribunal in support of its view on amendment timing.
S.A.L. Narayan Rao v. Iswarlal Bhagwandas, (57 ITR 149) (SC)	Held that retrospective effect is not to be given unless specifically provided.	Applied to uphold the principle that the amendment taking effect from 01.04.2005 could not be read back to affect AY 2004-2005 unless explicitly made retrospective.
Ansal Properties & Industries Ltd., 22 SOT 44 (Delhi Bench)	Held that provisions of section 80IB(10) are beneficial and a liberal interpretation in favour of the assessee may be appropriate.	The assessee relied on this decision for the proposition favouring liberal construction of beneficial tax provisions; the Tribunal noted the reliance though reached its conclusion primarily on statutory timing/retrospectivity grounds.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Tribunal conducted a stepwise analysis addressing first the validity of reopening and then the substantive entitlement to deduction under section 80IB(10).

Reopening (Validity):
- The Tribunal noted notices under section 148 were issued on 27.02.2009 (AY 2004-2005) and 27.03.2009 (AY 2005-2006) after recording reasons under section 148(2). These notices were issued near the end of the assessment years and thus the proviso to section 147 (which conditions late reopening on non-disclosure of material facts) did not apply.
- The AO had information from assessment proceedings of the subsequent AY 2006-2007 indicating that the housing project was not completed by the statutory date (31.03.2008). On this basis the AO recorded tangible reasons to believe income had escaped assessment in AY 2004-2005 and AY 2005-2006 and hence reopened assessments.
- The Tribunal referenced the decision in Rakesh Jhaveri to observe that processing of a return under section 143(1) is not an assessment showing the AO applied his mind; this supported the conclusion that reopening was not barred merely because returns had been processed earlier.
- On these bases, and after reviewing the authorities' orders and the record, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s conclusion that reopening of assessment for both years was valid, and dismissed the assessee's grounds challenging reopening.
Substantive entitlement under section 80IB(10):
- The Tribunal set out the text of section 80IB(10) as it stood before and after substitution by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004 w.e.f. 01.04.2005. Prior to the substitution (that is, as at 01.04.2004), the statutory conditions did not require a completion certificate from the local authority; the essential conditions then were commencement on/after 01.10.1998, minimum plot size and maximum built-up area criteria.
- By contrast, the substituted provision (effective 01.04.2005) expressly required completion within specified periods and contained an Explanation that the date of completion is the date on which the completion certificate is issued by the local authority — thereby introducing the certificate requirement for projects approved before 31.03.2007 but requiring completion within the stated timelines.
- The Tribunal applied the well-established principle that substantive amendments are prospective unless expressly made retrospective. It relied on State of Kerla v. Lex George and the series of authorities considered therein (and S.A.L. Narayan Rao) to conclude the completion-certificate requirement introduced w.e.f. 01.04.2005 could not be applied retrospectively to defeat claims governed by the law as it stood earlier.
- Applying these principles to the facts, the Tribunal held that for AY 2004-2005 (project approved in December 2002) the pre-amendment provisions (which did not require a completion certificate) applied, and the assessee satisfied the statutory pre-amendment conditions. Accordingly, the AO was directed to allow the deduction for AY 2004-2005.
- For AY 2005-2006, however, the substituted provision (effective 01.04.2005) was in force; it required completion within the specified time and the completion certificate from the local authority. The assessee had not obtained the completion certificate and thus did not meet the statutory condition introduced by the amendment. The Tribunal therefore confirmed the disallowance for AY 2005-2006.

Holding and Implications

Core Ruling: The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal in part and dismissed it in part:

AY 2004-2005: The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee's claim for deduction under section 80IB(10) (appeal allowed in part for this year).
AY 2005-2006: The Tribunal confirmed the action of the lower authorities in declining the deduction under section 80IB(10) because the amended provisions (effective 01.04.2005) required a completion certificate which the assessee had not obtained (appeal dismissed for this year).
Reopening: The Tribunal upheld the validity of reopening assessments for both years on the basis that the AO had recorded reasons under section 148(2) after receiving information in subsequent proceedings and that the proviso to section 147 did not apply given the timing of notices.

Implications:

Direct effect on the parties: The assessee succeeds for AY 2004-2005 and fails for AY 2005-2006; the AO must allow the deduction for AY 2004-2005 and the disallowance for AY 2005-2006 stands.
The Tribunal's decision follows established principles about prospectivity of substantive amendments and the scope for reopening where reasons are recorded; the opinion does not purport to lay down a novel precedent beyond applying those principles to the facts.

This summary is prepared strictly from the content of the provided opinion and does not add or infer facts not contained in that text.

Show full summary ...

Priyadharshani Construction v. Ito

Joginder Singh, J.M:— These appeals are filed by the assessee against the order of the learned Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals) dated 30th March, 2010 for the assessment years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 in the matter of order passed u/s. 147/143(3) of the Act, on the following grounds:—

ITA No. 509.Ind/2010 (A.Y 2004-2005, filed by the assessee)

Ground No. 1

That the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on facts and were not justified in holding that the initiation of reassessment proceeding u/s. 147 by issuing notice u/s. 148 is valid. The assessment made u/s. 147/143(3) by the learned Assessing Officer and sustained by the Hon'ble CIT (Appeals)-1 Bhopal is neither valid nor sustainable in law.

Ground No. 2

That at any event and without prejudice to the above the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on facts and were not justified in holding that the appellant is not entitled for the deduction u/s. 80IB (10) of the Income Tax Act and thereby disallowing the claim of Rs. 39,60,088/- made by the appellant. The so-called conclusion of the learned lower authorities is grossly wrong. The deduction as claimed may kindly be allowed.

Ground No. 3

That the learned lower authorities were not justified in holding that the appellant is not entitled for the claim made u/s. 80IB (10) of the Income Tax Act in spite of all the basic conditions fulfilled by the appellant and also submitted the relevant evidence in support of claim. Therefore, the claim made by the appellant be kindly accepted.

Ground No. 4

That the Hon'ble CIT (Appeals)-1 has erred and was not justified in not allowing proper opportunity to the appellant before taking contrary view without informing to the appellant about the decisions making the basis for disallowing the claim of the appellant made u/s. 80IB (10) of the Income Tax Act.

ITA No. 510.Ind/2010 (AY: 2005-2006, filed by the assessee) 1.

Ground No. 1

That the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on facts and were not justified in holding that the initiation of reassessment proceeding u/s 147 by issuing notice u/s 148 is valid. The assessment made u/s 147/143(3) by the learned Assessing Officer and sustained by the Hon'ble CIT(Appeals)-1 Bhopal is neither valid nor sustainable in law.

Ground No. 2

That at any event and without prejudice to the above the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on facts and were not justified in holding that the appellant is not entitled for the deduction u/s. 8IB(10) of the Income Tax Act and thereby disallowing the claim of Rs. 9,24,137/- made by the appellant. The so-called conclusion of the learned lower authorities is grossly wrong. The deduction as claimed may kindly be allowed.

Ground No. 3

That the learned lower authorities were not justified in holding that the appellant is not entitled for the claim made u/s. 801B(10) of the Income Tax Act in spite of all the basic conditions fulfilled by the appellant and also submitted the relevant evidence in support of claim. Therefore, the claim made by the appellant be kindly accepted.

Ground No. 4

2. The grievance of the assessee relates to disallowance of claim of deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of “Priyadarshini Nilayam”, Bhopal. The project was approved by the local authority on 2.12.2002 and the area of the project was 3.60 acres. During the course of assessment u/s. 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has not completed the project till 31st March, 2008, therefore, not eligible for claim of deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act.

3. Before the learned Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals) it was contended that the A.O has not validly initiated reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 for A.Y 2004-2005 and A.Y 2005-2006. It was submitted that the appellant is engaged in the business of developing and constructing housing project named as “Priyadarshini Nilayam” at Bawadia Kalan, Bhopal. It was submitted that income for both the assessment years accompanied with Audit Report u/s. 44AB as well as Audit Report in Form No. 10CCB for claiming deduction u/s. 80IB(10). It was contended that the appellant had disclosed all the material facts which were relevant for claiming of deduction u/s. 80IB(10) and, therefore, the A.O was not justified in reopening the assessments on the basis of change of opinion, as the original assessments were made on the basis of same sets of facts. It was also contended that there was no material with the A.O to have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax escaped assessments in these years. It was contended that the ITO should have “reasons to believe” and not “reasons to suspect” and there must be a direct nexus or live the A.O and formation of the belief that there has been escapement of income of the assessee from assessment in a particular year.

4. By the impugned order the learned Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals) held the reopening of assessment valid after having made the following observations:—

“I have carefully considered the submission of the appellant and facts of the case. It is pertinent to note here in this case that notice u/s. 148 for A.Y 2004-2005 was issued on 27.02.2009 and for A.Y 2005-2006 the notice u/s. 148 was issued on 27.03.2009 after recording reasons. Thus, the notices u/s. 148 for both the assessment years were issued end of assessment years and hence proviso to section 147 is not applicable in these assessment years. Therefore, the condition laid down under the proviso regareding failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully material facts necessary for the assessment is not required to be fulfilled in these cases. Moreover, the A.O has got information during the assessment proceedings of the subsequent A.Y 2006-2007 that the appellant had not completed the construction of the housing project within the specified period u/s. 80IB(10). The project was approved on 04.012.2002 i.e before 01.04.2004 and thus the completed by 31.03.2008 in view of provisions of section 80IB(10((a)(i). But the appellant had not completed the construction of the project till 31.03.2008 Thus, the A.O had received a tangible information that the construction of the housing project was not completed within the specified time and, therefore, the deduction u/s. 80IB(10) was wrongly allowed in the A.Y 2004-2005 and A.Y 2005-2006. On the basis of information, the A.O had recorded reasons u/s. 148(2). Similar reasons are recorded for A.Y 2005-2006. Thus, the A.O on the basis of information gathered during subsequent assessment proceedings, for A.Y 2006-2007 of the housing project within the specified period, recorded the reasons that in the assessments for A.Y 2004-2005 and in the intimation for A.Y 2005-2006, the assessed income had been made the subject of excessive relief u/s. 80IB(10) and, therefore, he had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment in both these assessment years.

3. We have considered the rival contentions, carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below and find from record and find that the original return of the assessee for assessment year 2005-2006 was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act and thereafter on the basis of the conclusion that there was escapement of income. Accordingly, he reopened the assessment. As per the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Jhaveri, processing of return us/143(1)(a) is not an assessment and it cannot be said that the Assessing Officer has applied his mind to the facts of the case. In view of the detailed findings recorded by the learned Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals), we do not find any infirmity in his order for holding the reopening of assessment valid. Reopening of assessment in the assessment year 2004-2005 was within four years of relevant assessment year, therefore, proviso to section 147 was not applicable and the learned Commissioner of Incometax reassessment u/s. 147 of the Act.

4. In the result, the Grounds taken by the assessee with regard to validity of reopening in both the years are dismissed.

5. With regard to the merit of disallowance u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act it was contended by the learned counsel for the assessee that the condition for completion of housing project within four years was prescribed by finance (No. 2) Act, 2004 with effect from 1.4.2005, therefore, such condition is applicable only with effect from the assessment year 2005-2006 and onwards and not for earlier years. However, the learned Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals) did not agree with the assessee's contention and held that since the assessee was unable to 31st March, 2008, therefore, not entitled for claim of deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act. The learned Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals) observed that the assessee has not obtained completion certificate in respect of the housing project from the local authority till 31st March, 2008, therefore, not fulfilled the conditions laid down u/s. 80IB(10)(a)(i) read with Explanation (ii) of the Act. Accordingly, Assessing Officer's action for declining the claim of deduction for the assessment years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 was confirmed by the learned Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals).

6. Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the learned Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals) commenced in the financial year 2002-2003 when there was no requirement for obtaining and furnishing the completion certificate from the local authority, hence, this condition cannot be applied in the case of the assessee where project was approved on 4.12.2002 He further submitted that the assessee had completed the construction of the project before 31st March, 2008 as the assessee had given possession to the customers of residential units before that day and the customers had also taken possession of the residential units and also paid property tax of the municipal corporation. He further submitted that the residents of the flats have also applied for electricity connection and also paid electricity bills even prior to 31st the assessee, all these facts show that the construction of the housing project was completed before the specified date. Reliance was placed upon the decision of the Delhi Bench in the case of Ansal Properties & Industries Limited; 22 SOT 44 wherein it was held that provisions of section 80IB(10) are beneficial provisions, therefore, liberal interpretation may be made of the provisions in favour of the assessee.

7. On the other hand, the learned Sr. DR contended that the assessee has failed to obtain completion certificate from the local authority for completion of the project before the specified date which is a pre-condition for grant of deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act. Thus he decline of claim of deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act.

8. We have considered the rival contentions, carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below. The undisputed facts of the case are that the housing project of the assessee viz. Priyadarshani Nilayam was approved by the local authority on 4.12.2002 The relevant provisions of law as they stood as on 1.4.2004 read as under:—

“Sub-Section (10) was substituted by the Finance (No. 2) Act of 2004 w.e.f 1.4.2005 and prior to its substitution, sub-section (10) as amended by the Finance Act 2000 w.e.f 1.4.2001 and Finance Act 2003 with retrospective effect from 1.4.2002 read as under:

“(10) The amount of profit in case of an undertaking developing and building housing project approved before 31st day of March, 2005 by a local authority, shall be 100% of the profit derived in any previous year relevant to any assessment year from such housing project if

(a) such undertaking has commenced or commences development and construction of the housing project on or after the first day of October, 1998,

(b) the project is on the size of a plot of land which has a minimum area of one acre and

(c) the residential unit has a maximum builtup area of 1000 sq. ft. where such residential unit is situated within the cities of Delhi or Mumbai or within 25 k.m from the municipal limit of these cities and 1500 sq. ft. at any other place.”

The following sub-section (10) was substituted for existing sub-section (10) of section 80IB by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004 w.e.f 1.4.2005:—

“(10) The amount of deduction in the case of an undertaking developing and building housing projects approved before the 31st day of March, 2007 by a local authority shall be hundred per cent of the profits derived in the previous year relevant to any assessment year from such housing project if,—

(a) such undertaking has commenced or commences development and construction of the housing project on or after the 1st day of October, 1998 and completes such construction,—

(i) in a case where a housing project has been approved by the local authority before the 1st day of April, 2004, on or before the 31st day of March, 2008;

(ii) in a case where a housing project has been, or, is approved by the local authority on or after the 1st day of April, 2004 within four years from the end of the financial year in which the housing project is approved by the local authority;

Explanation.—For the purposes of this clause,—

(i) in a case where the approval in respect of the housing project is obtained more than once, such housing project shall be deemed to have been approved on the date on which the building plan of such housing project is first approved by the local authority;

(ii) the date of completion of construction of the housing project shall be taken to be the date on which the completion certificate in respect of such housing project is issued by the local authority;

(b) the project is on the size of a plot of land which has a minimum area of one acre:

Provided that nothing contained in clause (a) or clause (b) shall apply to a housing project carried out in accordance with a scheme framed by the Central Government or a State Government for reconstruction or redevelopment of existing buildings in areas declared to be slum areas under any law for the time being in force and such scheme is notified by the Board in this behalf;

(c) the residential unit has a maximum built-up area of one thousand square feet where such residential unit is situated within the city of Delhi or Mumbai or within twenty-five kilometres from the municipal limits of these cities and one thousand and five hundred square feet at any other place;

(d) the built-up area of the shops and other commercial establishments included in the housing project does not exceed five per cent of the aggregate built-up area of the housing project or two thousand square feet, whichever is less”

It is very clear from the above provisions that as on 1.4.2004 there was no condition for obtaining completion certificate of the housing project for claiming deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act. First condition was that the assessee has commenced development and construction of housing project on or after first day of October, 1998. Second condition was that project is on the size of plot of land which has a minimum area of one acre. The third condition was that residential unit has a maximum built unit is situated within the city of Delhi or Mumbai or within 25 kms from the municipal limits of these cities and 1500 sq. ft. in any other place. We found that all these three conditions have been complied with by the Assessing Officer.

9. Now the question arises whether the Assessing Officer has rightly disallowed deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act on the basis of amended provisions which came on the statute at a later date i.e 1.4.2005 The obvious reply is ‘No’ because it is established law that substantive law unless made specifically retrospective has only to be understood as having prospective operation from the date on which it becomes law or any other date specified in the statute.

10. With regard to the retrospective application of the amendment, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Kerla v. Lex George, (2004) 271 ITR 290 that where schedule of rates was modified reducing inter alia exemption limit, the effect could be given in the next succeeding year. While coming to this conclusion, the Hon'ble Court also considered the decisions in Govind Ganga Saran v. CST, (155 ITR 144) (SC), Good Year India Ltd. v. State, (188 ITR 402) (SC), Keshave Ram Ind. & Cotton Mills v. CWT, (59 ITR 767) (SC), Reliance & Jute Ind. Ltd. v. CIT, (120 ITR 921) (SC) and Tea State India Ltd. v. CIT, (241 ITR 778) (Mad). The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S.A.L Narayan Rao v. Iswarlal Bhagwandas, (57 ITR 149) (SC) held that retrospective effect unless specifically provided.

11. Applying the relevant provisions of the law with respect to the date of approval of the project by the local authority as on 4.12.2002, we can safely conclude that the provisions applicable for the assessment year 2004-2005 do not require any completion certificate of the local authority insofar as amendment was brought with effect from 1.4.2005 i.e assessment year 2005-2006. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee's claim for deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act for the assessment year 2004-2005. In respect of the assessment year 2005-2006 since the amended provisions came into force, the assessee was required to obtain certificate from the local authority for deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act. As the assessee has not obtained such certificate, we confirm the action of the lower authorities for declining the claim of deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act to the assessee for the assessment year 2005-2006.

12. In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2004-2005 is allowed in part whereas the appeal for the assessment year 2005-2006 is dismissed.

Priyadharshani Construction v. Ito

Structured Summary of the Tribunal Opinion (Joginder Singh, J.M.)

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Assessee's Arguments

Revenue's / Assessing Officer's Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Priyadharshani Construction v. Ito

Comments