2014 (12) TMI 1214 - HC - Income Tax

Interpretation of section 80-IB(10)(d) - Effect of amendment w.e.f. 01.04.2005 - Held that - The controversy or issue in the above Appeals is covered either by a Division Bench judgment to which one of us (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J.) was a party rendered in M/s. Happy Home (2014 (9) TMI 707 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ) or another Division Bench judgment of in Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. M/s. Vandana Properties 2012 (4) TMI 54 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT held that section 80-IB(10)(d) is prospective in nature and can have no application to a housing project that is approved before 31st March 2005 - clause (d) of section 80-IB(10) is inextricably linked to the date of the approval of the housing project and the subsequent development/construction of the same and has nothing to do with the profits derived therefrom - Decided against revenue

Summary

Issues involved:
Determining if the controversy in the appeals is covered by specific Division Bench judgments.

Analysis:
The High Court of Bombay heard appeals to ascertain if the issues therein were addressed in Division Bench judgments. The Court referred to specific cases, including Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. M/s. Happy Home Enterprises and Commissioner of Income Tax, Central II V/s. M/s. Kanakia Spaces Pvt. Ltd. It was acknowledged that the disputes in the appeals were resolved in favor of the Assessee and against the Revenue in these judgments. Consequently, with the consent of both parties, the appeals were disposed of based on the principles established in the mentioned Division Bench judgments. No costs were awarded in these cases. Other appeals not entirely covered by these judgments were scheduled for further proceedings.

This judgment highlights the importance of precedent and the application of established legal principles in resolving disputes. The Court's reliance on previous Division Bench judgments demonstrates the significance of consistency and predictability in legal decisions. By aligning the current appeals with past rulings, the Court ensures fairness and uniformity in the interpretation and application of the law. The decision not to award costs in the disposed appeals signifies a standard practice in such cases. Additionally, the Court's directive to list other appeals for admission or hearing based on their individual merits emphasizes the need for thorough consideration of each case to achieve just outcomes.