2016 (5) TMI 1224 - HC - Income Tax

Interpretation of Section 80IB (10) as amended - Held that - No warrant review of the judgment under consideration on that count, as the interpretation given to the provisions contained in Section 80IB (10) as amended by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2004 which came into force w.e.f. 1.4.2005, would still apply in all cases heard and disposed of together.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing review petitions, interpretation of Section 80IB (10) of the Income Tax Act, relevance of Municipal Corporation Act in tax provisions, applicability of Supreme Court decisions in tax matters, availability of appeal as a remedy.

Delay in filing review petitions:
The judgment addressed delay applications for condonation of delay in filing review petitions, ranging from 14 to 52 days. The court allowed the delay applications in the interest of justice and proceeded to hear the review petitions forthwith.

Interpretation of Section 80IB (10) of the Income Tax Act:
The main issue revolved around the interpretation of Section 80IB (10) as amended, particularly focusing on the condition specified in Clause (a) regarding the computation of the date of completion of construction of a housing project. The court emphasized that the provisions of the Municipal Corporation Act have no bearing on the interpretation of the Income Tax Act amendments under consideration. The judgment relied on the express provision contained in the Explanation below Clause (a) (ii) of Section 80IB (10) to determine the date of completion of construction.

Relevance of Municipal Corporation Act in tax provisions:
The court clarified that the provisions of the Municipal Corporation Act and decisions of the Supreme Court cited by the review petitioners were not applicable to the interpretation of Section 80IB (10) of the Income Tax Act. The court highlighted that the express provisions of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2004, governed the interpretation of tax benefits for housing projects.

Applicability of Supreme Court decisions in tax matters:
The review petitioners argued that the judgment under appeal did not align with a Supreme Court decision, but the court rejected this argument. The court emphasized that the Supreme Court decision cited was not dealing with the specific provision in Section 80IB (10) that was being interpreted in the present case.

Availability of appeal as a remedy:
The review petitioners requested the court to grant them liberty to appeal before the Supreme Court, but the court dismissed this request. The court maintained that the interpretation of Section 80IB (10) as amended would apply uniformly to all cases heard and disposed of together, regardless of the availability of appeal as a remedy in specific situations.

In conclusion, the court dismissed all review petitions, emphasizing that the interpretation of Section 80IB (10) of the Income Tax Act, based on the express provisions of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2004, governed the tax benefits for housing projects. The court reiterated that the provisions of the Municipal Corporation Act and other legal decisions were not relevant to the specific tax provisions under consideration.