9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 984 - HC - Income TaxDeduction u/s 80IB(10) - Does the respondent assessee satisfy the condition (b) of Section 80IB(10) of the Act which requires the project claiming the deduction to be on size of a plot of land which has a minimum area of one acre? - Held that - The issues raised herein namely non-satisfaction of condition (b) of Section provided in Section 80IB(10)(b) of the Act stood satisfied and concluded against the Revenue by the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bramha Associates 2011 (2) TMI 373 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT Does respondent assessee satisfy condition (c) of Section 80IB of the Act which requires the project claiming deduction must have residential units in it, not in excess of minimum builtup area of 1000 sq.ft.? - Held that - Both the CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal have on facts concluded the issue in favour of the respondent assessee. This concurrent finding of fact is duly supported by the remand report of the Assessing Officer accepting the fact that even when flats are joined, the combined area is less than 1000 sq.ft.. The Revenue has not shown the concurrent finding of fact leading to satisfaction of clause (c) of Section 80IB(10) of the Act to be perverse in any manner. No substantial question of law
Issues:
- Challenge to order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 - Interpretation of Section 80IB(10) of the Act regarding conditions (b) and (c) for deduction Analysis: Issue 1: Challenge to Tribunal's Order The Appeals under Section 260A challenge the order dated 2nd January, 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for Assessment Years 2004-05 to 2008-09. The main question raised is whether the Tribunal was justified in allowing the claim of the assessee for deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Act when conditions (b) and (c) were allegedly not satisfied. Issue 2: Interpretation of Section 80IB(10) - Condition (b) In addressing issue no.(i), the Court considered the satisfaction of condition (b) of Section 80IB(10) which requires the project to be on a plot of land with a minimum area of one acre. The Court noted that the issue had been previously raised in regular assessment proceedings and decided against the Revenue by a prior court decision. Despite the Revenue's arguments, the Court found that the issue was conclusively settled in favor of the assessee by the Supreme Court's decision. The Court emphasized the importance of legal precedents and dismissed the appeal on this issue. Issue 3: Interpretation of Section 80IB(10) - Condition (c) Regarding issue no.(ii), the Court examined the satisfaction of condition (c) of Section 80IB(10) which requires residential units not exceeding a built-up area of 1000 sq.ft. The Tribunal's order and the CIT(A) found that even when two flats were combined, the total area did not exceed 1000 sq.ft. The Assessing Officer's remand report supported this finding. The Court upheld the concurrent factual findings and concluded that the issue did not raise any substantial question of law, hence dismissing the appeal on this ground as well. In conclusion, the Court did not entertain the proposed question as it did not give rise to any substantial question of law. All five appeals were dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
|
