9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (6) TMI 615 - HC - Income TaxDeduction u/s 80IB(10) - Date of commencement of Housing Project to claim deduction u/s 80IB - Held that - There is no distinguishing features warranting a different view in this appeal from that taken in the order 2014 (12) TMI 1320 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT there is no substantial question of law - thus not entertained. Profits from the other units worked out separately and allowed deduction u/s 80IB(10) - Held that - Not able to show us from the orders passed by the authorities under the Act that any disallowance under Section 80IB of the Act was attributable to the flat being in excess of 1000 sq. ft. This indicates the most casual and reckless manner in which the Revenue files appeals before this Court. Treatment of rent from amenities - income from other sources - Held that - It is not even the case of the Revenue that furniture belonging to the respondent has been let out along with building to the lessee bank - thus there is no occasion to Section 56(2)(iii) and the amount cannot be classified as income from other sources - hence there is no question of law - appeal is dismissed.
Issues:
1. Interpretation of the date of commencement of development and construction of a Housing Project for deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether profits from units exceeding the prescribed ceiling on built-up area can be worked out separately for deduction under section 80IB(10). 3. Classification of rent from amenities as income from house property or income from other sources. Issue 1: Interpretation of the date of commencement of development and construction of a Housing Project for deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The High Court dismissed the appeal by the Revenue, stating that a previous order related to the same issue had already been decided against the Revenue in a different case. The Court found no substantial question of law in this regard and, therefore, did not entertain this issue. Issue 2: Profits from units exceeding the prescribed ceiling on built-up area for deduction under section 80IB(10). The Court noted that the Revenue failed to provide evidence of any disallowance under Section 80IB of the Act due to the area of some flats exceeding 1000 sq. ft. The Court criticized the Revenue for the casual manner in which appeals were filed. As a result, the Court held that the proposed question of law did not arise from the Tribunal's order, and thus, declined to entertain this issue. Issue 3: Classification of rent from amenities as income from house property or income from other sources. The Assessing Officer initially classified the income from amenities as income from other sources instead of income from house property. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) found that the amenities agreement required the respondent to provide services akin to any building owner letting out a property. The Tribunal upheld this finding, emphasizing that the income from amenities could not be classified under Section 56(2)(iii) of the Act as it did not involve letting out furniture along with the building. Consequently, the Court held that the income from amenities agreement should be treated as income from house property and not from other sources. The Court found no substantial question of law in this regard and, therefore, did not entertain this issue. In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging the Tribunal's order for Assessment Year 2010-11. The Court addressed and analyzed the three key issues raised by the Revenue, providing detailed reasoning for each and ultimately dismissing the appeal without any order as to costs.
|
