2011 (6) TMI 848 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves three appeals by the Revenue against the orders of the Ld. CIT (A)-I, Bangalore for the assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07, and 2007-08, primarily focusing on the allowance of deduction u/s 80-IB (10) and the fulfillment of conditions for the same.

I. ITA No.387/10 - A.Y 2005-06:
The main issue was whether the deduction u/s 80-IB (10) was allowable when the conditions were not fulfilled by the assessee, specifically regarding the commencement of construction work before obtaining approval from local authorities.

II. ITA No.388 & 822/10 - A.Y 2006-07 & 2007-08:
The crux of the matter for these assessment years was the allowance of deduction u/s 80-IB (10) without furnishing relevant details and evidence in support of the claim, and the discrepancy between the approval date and the actual commencement of the project.

Judgment Details:
The Appellate Tribunal, after considering the arguments of both parties, upheld the Ld. CIT (A)'s decision that the assessee was entitled to deduction u/s 80IB (10) for all the assessment years under challenge. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of the approval date of the project, as per the provisions of the Act, and cited relevant case laws to support their decision. They concluded that the Ld. CIT (A) had made a justified decision based on the facts and legal precedents presented.

The Tribunal highlighted that the approval date of the project by the competent authority was crucial, not the date of communication, and referenced judgments by the Bombay High Court to support their stance. They noted that the Revenue's argument regarding the project's approval date and the commencement of construction work did not hold ground based on the legal provisions and precedents cited.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals for all the assessment years under challenge, affirming the decision that the assessee was entitled to deduction u/s 80IB (10) based on the facts and legal interpretations presented. The judgment was pronounced on June 22, 2011.