2015 (8) TMI 859 - HC - Income Tax

Deduction under section 80IB(10) - Held that - It is not in dispute that where a project is approved as a housing project without or with commercial user to the extent permitted under the rules / Regulations, then, deduction under section 80-IB(10) would be allowable. In other words, if a project could be approved as a housing project having residential units with permissible commercial user, then it is not open to the income tax authorities to contend that the expression housing project in section 80-IB(10) is applicable to projects having only residential units. See M/s. Happy Home Enterprises case 2014 (9) TMI 707 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT - Decided against revenue. Thus if other project styled as Tulsi is part or extension of Vrindavan Project, then, Vrindavan Project is entitled to the benefit and deduction under section 80IB(10), Tulsi Project will also be entitled for the same.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Interpretation of section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; Determination of substantial questions of law raised by the Revenue; Application of previous judgment in a similar case to the current case.

Analysis:

1. The High Court considered the deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the present case. The Court noted that the questions framed by the Revenue were not substantial questions of law. The Court referred to a previous judgment in Income Tax Appeal No.201 of 2012, where all three questions were answered in favor of the Assessee and against the Revenue. The Court found that questions 6.1 & 6.2 were fully covered by the previous judgment.

2. Regarding question 6.3, the Court examined the factual conclusion of the Tribunal, which indicated that if the "Tulsi" project is part or extension of the "Vrindavan" project, both projects would be entitled to the benefit and deduction under section 80IB(10). The Court concluded that in the given circumstances, there was no wider question or controversy to be determined based on the peculiar facts of the case.

3. The Court ultimately held that all three questions had already been answered against the Revenue and in favor of the Assessee by the Division Bench in the previous judgment. As a result, the Court dismissed the Appeal, stating that it did not raise any substantial question of law and ordered no costs to be imposed.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the issues involved and the Court's reasoning in arriving at its decision.