N.K Saini, Accountant Member - This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 8.12.2010 of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - V, Bangalore.

2. The following grounds have been raised in this appeal :

"1. The order of the learned CIT(A)-V is not justified in law and on facts and circumstances of the case.

2. The learned CIT(A) is not justified in denying the benefit of sec. 80IB(10) to the appellant although the appellant satisfied all the requisite conditions in respect thereof.

3. The learned CIT(A) is not justified in holding that sec. 80IB(10) is applicable only to an undertaking involved in developing and construction by ignoring the legal position that sec. 80IB(10) is applicable to an undertaking of developing and building housing project and not developing and construction of housing project.

4. The lower authorities have failed to appreciate that sec. 80IB(10) does not require that the assessee himself should construct the housing project and it is sufficient if he undertakes the activity of developing and building the housing project.

5. The lower authorities have failed to appreciate that practically every major developer of housing project would outsource construction to third parties which act by itself would not make him any less a developer and would not make any him ineligible for deduction of sec. 80IB(10).

6. The lower authorities are not justified in falling to appreciate that sec. 80IB(10) does not insist on actual construction to be carried out by the eligible assessee and in term of Explanation, mere construction on works contract is in fact ineligible for deduction there under.

7. The lower authorities are not justified perversely holding that the appellant did not engage in developing but only contributed land for the project ignoring that apart from land contribution appellant incurred sizable expenditure in the development of housing project.

8. The lower authorities are not justified in holding that the appellant is a mere contributor of land ignoring that the appellant himself was engaged in the business of real estate, had converted his land holing for commercial purpose, had converted his land into stock-in-trade and had obtained requisite plan sanction, water and electricity for development and building of housing project in his name.

9. The lower authorities are not justified in falling to appreciate various terms of Joint Development Agreement which clearly indicated that the appellant was not mute contributor of land but was an active partner in development and building of housing project.

10. The lower authorities have ailed to appreciate that the appellant assumed significant risks associated with the development and building of housing project. Therefore, being co-venturer in the Joint Development Agreement, he is eligible for benefit of deduction u/s 80IB(10)."

3. From the above grounds, it is gathered that only grievance of the assessee relates to the denial of deduction claimed u/s 80IB(10) of the Income-tax Act 1961 ((hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', in short).

3.1 The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee is a proprietor of M/s Bilad Builders & Developers and filed its return of income on 31.10.2006 declaring a total income of Rs. 88,28,640/-. The assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 1,72,20,784/- u/s 80IB(10) of the Act out of the gross total income arrived at Rs. 2,60,49,397/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the AO asked the details regarding the 80IB(10) project undertaken by the assessee. The AO noticed that the assessee is a land developer and converted his land at survey No. 26/1, Volagerahalli, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. measuring 1 acre and 31 guntas on 1.9.2003 by putting the same for development by entering into joint development agreement on 3/11/2003 with M/s Reddy Structures Pvt. Ltd and offered the capital gain for tax u/s 45(2) of the Act in the year in which the complete stock in trade was sold. The AO pointed out t