9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 1342 - HC - Income TaxDeduction u/s 80IB(10) - production of completion certificate indicating completion of the project - Held that - In the case of CIT, Aurangabad Vs. Hindustan Samuh Awas Ltd. 2015 (10) TMI 2306 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT holding on identical facts that where the builder has completed a housing project within the time provided under Section 80IB(10)(a)(iii) and had also filed an application seeking completion certificate from the Municipal Corporation in time, then, the said builder - assessee is entitled to the benefit of Section 80IB(10)(a)(iii) of the Act. This notwithstanding the fact that the certificate has not been issued by the municipal corporation before the last date for completion of project. The aforesaid decision in Hindustan Samuh Awas Ltd (supra) of this Court had dismissed the Revenue s appeal at final hearing on the substantial question of law. Moreover, the decision was rendered after the appeal in the case of Satish Bora (supra) was admitted. As the decision in Hindustan Samuh Awas Ltd (supra) concludes the issue raised herein finally, the same is binding upon us. More so in absence of the Revenue being able to show any distinguishing factor in this case which would warrant different view than that taken by this Court in Hindustan Samuh Awas Ltd (supra). No substantial question of law.
Issues:
1. Challenge to order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding deduction u/S. 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2009-10. Comprehensive Analysis: The appeal before the Bombay High Court challenged the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal related to the deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2009-10. The Revenue filed a single appeal encompassing the judgments of both the respondent-assessee and the Revenue before the Tribunal. However, the counsel for the Revenue sought to limit the appeal to only the Revenue's case, with a request to file a separate appeal for the assessee's case later. The Court granted this request. The main issue raised was whether the Tribunal was justified in allowing the deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Act without the production of a completion certificate as required by Section 80IB(10)(a)(iii). The Court examined whether the explanation to Section 80IB(10)(a)(iii) was satisfied by the respondent-assessee. The Tribunal's order indicated that the project, for which a commencement certificate was granted on a specific date, was completed on a later date. The completion was evidenced by an application for a completion certificate submitted to the Pune Municipal Corporation. Despite a delay in issuing the certificate by the Municipal Corporation, the Tribunal found that the project was completed within the specified period. The Tribunal referred to the Development Control Rules of the Pune Municipal Corporation, which deemed the occupancy certificate granted if not issued within a certain period without any objections. Moreover, the Tribunal relied on a previous decision involving similar facts and extended the benefit of Section 80IB(10)(iii) to the assessee. Another decision cited was from the Gujarat High Court. The counsel for the Revenue argued that the Court had admitted appeals on similar issues previously and should do so in this case as well. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent contended that a decision by the Aurangabad Bench of the Court had settled the issue, stating that a builder completing a project within the specified time and applying for a completion certificate in time is entitled to the benefit under Section 80IB(10)(a)(iii), even if the certificate is not issued by the last completion date. This decision was considered final, dismissing the Revenue's appeal on the substantial question of law. The Court found this decision binding, especially as no distinguishing factors were presented by the Revenue to warrant a different view. Consequently, the Court concluded that the proposed question of law did not raise any substantial issue and dismissed the appeal accordingly.
|
