The ITO, Ward-9(1), Ahmedabad V. M/s. Parashar Developers, Ahmedabad

ITA 1781/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1333 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 10 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 28-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 09-08-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: BHARAT S SHAH
• Section: 80IB

Judgement Text

, , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ././ ./ ITA NOS. 1028 & 1781/AHD/2012 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 & 2009-10 INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 9(1), AHMEDABAD VS M/S. PARASHAR DEVELOPERS, SANSKRUT, 1 ST FLOOR, OLD HIGH COURT, NAVRANGPURA, AHMEDABAD PAN: AAJFP 2151 L / // / (APPELLANT) / // / (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJDEEP SINGH, SR DR ASSESSEE(S) BY : SHRI BHARAT S. SHAH, AR / // / DATE OF HEARING : 28/06/2016 / // / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 29/06/2016 / // / O R D E R PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THESE TWO APPEALS BY THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX ( APPEALS)-XV, AHMEDABAD DATED 24.02.2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 200 8-09 & 2009-10. 2. THE EFFECTIVE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN I TS APPEALS READ AS UNDER:- AY : 2008-2009 1. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-XV, AH MEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DIRECTING THE ASSE SSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OF RS.2,02 ,19,004/- U/S 80IB(10) OF THE I.T. ACT 2. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-XV, AH MEDABAD HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE FULFILLS THE CONDITIONS LAID ITA NOS. 1028 & 1781/AHD/2012 ITO VS. M/S. PARASHAR DEVELOPERS AY : 2008-09 & 2009-10 2 DOWN FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/80IB(10) EVEN WHEN TH E LAND WAS IN THE NAMES OF (1) SHUKAN VILLAS FOR SAKAL CO-OPER ATIVE HSG. SOCIETY LTD., VIBHAG-19 (NEW NAME : SHUKAN VILAS CO -OP HSG SOCIETY LTD) AND (2) SULAY RAW HOUSE FOR SAKAL COOPER ATIVE HSG SOCIETY LTD, VIBHAG-13 (NEW NAME : SULAY CO-OP HSG SOCIETY LTD.) WHICH ARE SEPARATE LEGAL ENTITIES IN THE EYE O F LAW AND THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO THE PROJECT BY A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE SOCIETIES. THE ENTIRE RESPONSIBILITY TO EXECUTE THE HOUSING PROJECT AND ABIDE BY THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF IT S APPROVAL RIGHT FROM THE INCEPTION OF THE PROJECT TILL ITS COMPLETI ON RESTS WITH THE SOCIETIES. THE LOCAL AUTHORITY HAD GRANTED PERMISS ION FOR DEVELOPMENT TO THE SOCIETIES. ASSESSEE WAS JUST A C ONTRACTOR OF THE LAND OWNERS AND NOT A DEVELOPER. AY : 2009-2010 1. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-XV, AH MEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DIRECTING THE ASSE SSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OF RS.15,9 3,76,433/- U/S 80IB(10) OF THE I.T. ACT. 2. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-XV, AH MEDABAD HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE FULFILLS THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/80IB(10) EVEN WHEN THE LAND WAS IN THE NAMES OF (1) SHUKAN VILLAS FOR SAKAL CO-OPERATIV E HSG. SOCIETY LTD., VIBHAG-19 (NEW NAME : SHUKAN VILAS CO-OP HSG SOCIETY LTD) AND (2) SUPRABH APARTMENT FOR SAKAL COOPERATIVE HSG SOCIETY LTD, VIBHAG-4 AND (3) SULAY ROW HOUSE FOR SAKAL COOPERAT IVE HSG SOCIETY LTD, VIBHAG-13 (NEW NAME : SULAY CO-OP HSG SOCIETY LTD.) AND (4) SANATAN APARTMENT FOR SAKAL COOPERATIVE HSG SOCIETY LTD, VIBHAG-8 AND (5) SANMUKH APARTMENT FOR SAKAL COOPERA TIVE HSG SOCIETY LTD, VIBHAG-8 AND (6) SMARANA APARTMENT FOR SAKAL COOPERATIVE HSG SOCIETY LTD, VIBHAG-4 AND (7) SAKSH AT APARTMENT FOR SAKAL COOPERATIVE HSG SOCIETY LTD, VIBHAG-8 WH ICH ARE SEPARATE LEGAL ENTITIES IN THE EYE OF LAW AND THE ASSESSEE E NTERED INTO THE PROJECT BY A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE SOCIETI ES. THE ENTIRE RESPONSIBILITY TO EXECUTE THE HOUSING PROJECT AND A BIDE BY THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ITS APPROVAL RIGHT FROM THE INCEP TION OF THE PROJECT TILL ITS COMPLETION RESTS WITH THE SOCIETIES. THE LOCAL AUTHORITY HAD GRANTED PERMISSION FOR DEVELOPMENT TO THE SOCIETIES . ASSESSEE WAS JUST A CONTRACTOR OF THE LAND OWNERS AND NOT A DEVE LOPER. ITA NOS. 1028 & 1781/AHD/2012 ITO VS. M/S. PARASHAR DEVELOPERS AY : 2008-09 & 2009-10 3 3. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, AT THE OUTSET, CON TENDED THAT THE ISSUE IN QUESTION IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY ITAT JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE OF NARAYAN REALTY LIMITED VS. DCIT ITA NOS.2293/AHD/2012 & 2095/AHD/2013 VIDE ORDER DATED 02.05.2014, WHEREIN THE ISSUE ABOUT ELIGIBILITY OF DEDUCTION UN DER SECTION 80IB(10) IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE WHO IS NOT THE OWNER OF T HE LAND WAS ALLOWED FOLLOWING THE ITAT JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE OF SATSANG DEVELOPERS IN ITA NO.1011, 2498 AND 1221/AHD/2012 BY FOLLOWING OB SERVATIONS:- 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. ON PERUSING THE ORDER OF CIT(A), IT IS S EEN THAT CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT THE ISSUE RELATING TO DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE IS N OT THE OWNER OF THE LAND AND THE APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT NOT BEING IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE BY THE DE CISION OF HIS PREDECESSOR IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AY 2008-09. W E FURTHER FIND THAT CIT(A) HAD DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO TWO AGREEMENTS NAMEL Y 'SALE DEED' FOR THE SALE OF LAND AND 'CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT' F OR THE CONSTRUCTION THE UNIT AND THEREFORE ACCORDING TO HI M, THE ASSESSEE WAS A CONTRACTOR AND THEREFORE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DED UCTION U/S 8018(10). WE ALSO FIND THAT ON IDENTICAL FACTS, THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SATSANG DEVELOPERS ( ITA NO 1011, 2498 AND 1221 OF 2012 ORDER DATED 12.11.2013 HAS AL LOWED THE DEDUCTION TO ASSESSEE BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- 4.2. IN ADDITION TO ABOVE TWO OBJECTIONS, THE ID.C IT (A) HAS RAISED ONE MORE OBJECTION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOL D THE LAND TO THE UNIT HOLDERS SEPARATELY AND HAS DONE THE CONSTR UCTION OF UNITS UNDER SEPARATE AGREEMENT/CONTRACT AND, THEREF ORE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80-IB(10 ) OF THE ACT BECAUSE AS PER LD.CIT(A), PROFIT EARNED BY THE ASSE SSEE IN RESPECT OF SALE OF LAND IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.8 0-IB(10) OF THE ACT AND SIMILARLY, THE PROFIT EARNED BY THE ASSESSE E FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTI ON U/S.80-IB(10) ITA NOS. 1028 & 1781/AHD/2012 ITO VS. M/S. PARASHAR DEVELOPERS AY : 2008-09 & 2009-10 4 BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE IS DOING THE CONSTRUCTION AS A CONTRACTOR FOR A WORK AND NOT AS A BUILDER OR DEVELOPER AND, THERE FORE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80-IB(10 ) OF THE ACT. AGAINST THESE OBJECTIONS OF LD.CIT (A), THE ASSESSE E IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5.2 REGARDING THE 3 R OBJECTION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD LAND TO THE UNIT HOLDERS SEPARATELY AND HAS DONE THE CONSTR UCTION UNITS UNDER A PROJECT AGREEMENT/CONTRACT, IT WAS SUBMITTE D THAT IT IS A JOINT ACTIVITY ALTHOUGH THE AGREEMENT AND LAND SALE -DEED ARE EXECUTED SEPARATELY, BUT FOR THIS REASON ALONE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT A BUILDER OR A DEVELOPER. HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING TRIBUNAL DECISIONS:- SL. NO(S) DECISION IN THE CASE OF. ... REPORTED IN.... 1. DCIT VS. SMR BUILDERS (P.)LTD. (2012)24 TAXMAN.COM 194 (HYD.) 2. SKY BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS VS. ITO (2011)14 TAXMAN.COM 78 (INDORE) 3. M/S.VARDHMAN BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS VS. ITO ITA NO.559/IND/2010 DATED 09/05/20 12 4. RAGHAVA ESTATES VS. DY.CIT ITA NOS.248 & 49/VIZAG/2009 DATED 04/08/2011 5.2. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CASE OF VARDHMAN BUIL DERS & DEVELOPERS (SUPRA) ALSO, THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED IN TO A SEPARATE AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF LAND AND SEPARATE AGREEMENT F OR CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSING ON SUCH LAND AND UNDER THES E FACTS, IT WAS HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THAT CASE THAT MERELY B ECAUSE OF TWO SEPARATE AGREEMENTS, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80-IB (10) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE DECLINED IF OTHE R CONDITIONS ARE BEING SATISFIED. 5.3. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. SMR BUILDERS (P) LTD. (SUPRA) ALSO, THE FACTS WERE THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD FLATS IN A SEMI-FINISHED STAGE. IN THAT CASE, THE AO HAD NOTED THAT AS PER THE SALE-DEED, THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY HAS SOLD UNDIVIDED SHARE OF LAND WITH SUPER-STRUCTURE OF SEM I-FINISHED BUILT-UP AREA FOR A CERTAIN CONSIDERATION. THE AO H ELD THAT THE ITA NOS. 1028 & 1781/AHD/2012 ITO VS. M/S. PARASHAR DEVELOPERS AY : 2008-09 & 2009-10 5 SEMI-FINISHED STRUCTURE HAS NEVER BEEN CONSIDERED A S A RESIDENTIAL UNIT. IT WAS ALSO NOTED BY THE AO IN THAT CASE THAT ON THE SAME DATE WHEN THE SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED, A CONSTRUCTIO N AGREEMENT WAS ALSO ENTERED INTO WITH THE TRANSFEREE FOR FURTH ER CONSTRUCTION OF THE SAME FLATS BY THE BUILDER COMPANY ITSELF. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE SIMILAR. HE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT IN THAT CASE, IT WAS HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE STAND OF THE REVENUE WITH REGARD TO THE SEMIFINISHED CONDITION O F THE FLATS IS DEVOID OF ANY MERIT IN AS MUCH AS WHAT IS SOUGHT TO BE CONSTRUCTED AND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE IS A RESIDENTI AL UNITS AND WHAT IS SOUGHT TO BE PURCHASED BY THE BUYER IS THE OWNERSHIP OF THE SPECIFIED UNIT AND REGISTRATION OF FLAT IN SEMI -FINISHED CONDITION IS ONLY TO FACILITATE THE CONVENIENCE OF THE PARTIES AND AGREEMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT AND COMPLETION OF BALANCE WORK IN RELATION TO THE FLATS IS ONLY AN INCIDENTAL FORMALI TY AND THIS CANNOT BE VIEWED AS FATAL TO THE CLAIM OF THE ASSES SEE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80-IB(10) OF THE ACT. IT WAS ALSO HEL D BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE ENTIRE WORK FROM THE STAGE OF THE COMMENCEMENT TO THE STAGE OF MAKING THE RESIDENTIAL UNIT HABITABLE HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE ONL Y AND, THEREFORE, ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.8 0-IB(L 0) OF THE ACT. 9.2. NOW WE TAKE UP THE THIRD AND LAST OBJECTION OF ID.CIT (A) THAT THE ASSESSE HAD SOLD THE LAND SEPARATELY AND U NDERTOOK THE CONSTRUCTION WORK AS PER A SEPARATE AGREEMENT AND, THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE IS NOT A BUILDER OR A DEVELOPER BUT A LAND DEALER AND CONTRACTOR. IN THIS REGARD, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINI ON, THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF ITAT INDORE BENCH RENDERED IN THE CASE OF M/S.VA RDHMAN BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS VS. ITO (SUPRA). IT IS NOTED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THAT CASE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR A SALE OF LAND AND A SEPARATE AGREEME NT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSE ON THE LAND AND, THEREFOR E, THE FACTS ARE SIMILAR. UNDER THESE FACTS, IT WAS HELD BY THE TRIB UNAL IN THAT CASE THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION U /S.80-IB (10) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE DECLINED IF OTHER CONDITIONS ARE BEING SATISFIED. SIMILARLY, IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. SMR BUILDERS (P. ) LTD. (SUPRA) ALSO, THE ASSESSEE SOLD THE LAND ALONG WITH SEMI-FINISHED STRUCTURE TO THE BUYERS AND AS PER SEPARATE AGREEME NT, AGREED FOR ITA NOS. 1028 & 1781/AHD/2012 ITO VS. M/S. PARASHAR DEVELOPERS AY : 2008-09 & 2009-10 6 CONSTRUCTION FOR COMPLETION OF BALANCE WORK. HENCE, THE FACTS OF THIS CASE ARE ALSO SIMILAR BECAUSE IN THAT CASE ALS O, THE LAND WAS SOLD SEPARATELY ALONG WITH PARTIAL AND UNFINISHED C ONSTRUCTION OF FLATS AND, THEREAFTER, CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT WAS E NTERED INTO TO CARRY OUT THE BALANCE CONSTRUCTION WORK AND UNDER T HESE FACTS, IT WAS HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THAT CASE THAT SUCH AGR EEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION TO COMPLETE THE BALANCE WORK IS ONLY A N INCIDENTAL FACILITATION TO PROTECT INTEREST OF THE PARTIES AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80-IB(10) OF THE ACT. SIMILARLY, IN THE CASE OF RAGHAVA ESTATES VS. DY.CI T (SUPRA) ON WHICH RELIANCE WAS PLACED BY THE ID.AR OF THE ASSES SEE, THE FACTS ARE SIMILAR. IN THAT CASE ALSO, THE ASSESSEE HAD SO LD THE PLOTS SEPARATELY AND THEREAFTER, CONSTRUCTED THE HOUSES A ND UNDER THESE FACTS, THE REVENUE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS A MERE CONTRACTOR AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80-IB (10) OF THE ACT. THIS GOES TO SH OW THAT THE FACTS IN THAT CASE WERE IDENTICAL. IN THAT CASE, IT WAS NOTED BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CHOSEN TO REGISTER T HE PLOT IN THE NAME OF THE BUYER ON PAYMENT OF SPECIFIED AMOUNT IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE COST SAVING AND TO ENSURE RELIABILITY AND T HEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE HAD PROCEEDED TO CONSTRUCT THE HOUSE AS PE R BUILDING PLAN OBTAINED IN THE NAME OF THE PLOT-OWNERS ON PAY MENT OF SUBSEQUENT INSTALLMENTS. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO DEVELOPED VARIOUS PUBLIC AMENITIES WITHIN THE PROJECT. THEREAFTER, IT WAS HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT ON A T OTALITY OF A FACT, THE TRIBUNAL IS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS U NDERTAKEN DEVELOPING AND BUILDING HOUSING PROJECTS AS PER THE SCHEME PROVIDED IN SECTION 80-IB (10) OF THE ACT. 9.3. SINCE THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE SIMILA R TO THE FACTS IN ABOVE NOTED THREE TRIBUNAL DECISIONS, WE DO NOT FIN D ANY DEFECT IN THE CONSTRUCTION IN THE PRESENT CASE AND HENCE R ESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THESE DECISIONS, WE DECIDE THE ISSUE IN F AVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO OTHER OBJECTION OF THE LD. CI T(A) REGARDING ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTION TO THE ASSESSEE U/S. 80IB (10) OF THE ACT. HENCE, WE DIRECT THE A.O TO GRANT THE DEDUCTION TO THE ASSESSEE U/S. 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. 9. BEFORE US, THE REVENUE COULD DID NOT PLACE ANY C ONTRARY DECISION ON RECORD NOR COULD DISTINGUISH THE FACTS OF THE CA SE WHICH WAS RELIED ITA NOS. 1028 & 1781/AHD/2012 ITO VS. M/S. PARASHAR DEVELOPERS AY : 2008-09 & 2009-10 7 BY THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FACTS, WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL, IN THE CASE OF SATSANG DEVELOPERS (SUPRA) HOLD THAT ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10). THU S THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 10. THIS THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 3.1 LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO DREW OUR ATTE NTION TO THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RADHE DEVELOPERS IN TAX APPEAL NO.546 OF 2008, REPO RTED IN (2012) 341 ITR 0403, WHEREIN THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COUR T HAS DECIDED A SIMILAR ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT THE ASSESSEE MUST BE THE OWNE R OF THE LAND AND SECONDLY LOOKING TO THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SEC TION 2(4) OF THE ACT READ WITH SECTION 53A OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY A CT, BY VIRTUE OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND THE AGREEMENT TO SELL, TH E ASSESSEE HAD, FOR THE PURPOSE OF INCOME TAX, BECOME THE OWNER OF THE LAND. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIV E SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE HONBLE GUJA RAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RADHE DEVELOPERS (SUPRA) HAS HE LD THAT THE PROVISIONS NOWHERE REQUIRED THAT ONLY THOSE DEVELOP ERS WHO THEMSELVES OWN THE LAND WOULD RECEIVE THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. NEITHER THE PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 80IB NOR ANY OTHER PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN OTHER RELATED STATUTE S DEMONSTRATE THAT OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND WOULD BE A CONDITION PRECEDEN T FOR DEVELOPING ITA NOS. 1028 & 1781/AHD/2012 ITO VS. M/S. PARASHAR DEVELOPERS AY : 2008-09 & 2009-10 8 THE HOUSING PROJECT. SUCH REQUIREMENT CANNOT BE RE AD INTO THE STATUTE BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT REQUIRING THAT OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND MUST VEST IN THE DEVELOP ER TO BE ABLE TO QUALIFY FOR SUCH DEDUCTION. WE, THEREFORE, FIND THA T THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS SUPPORTED BY THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE JUR ISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WHICH IS HEREBY CONFIRMED AND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, BOTH APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE D ISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 29 TH JUNE, 2016 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (KUL BHARAT) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 29/06/2016 *BIJU T. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 5. , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY / // / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD