9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 819X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant None for the respondent ORDER P. C. 1. These Appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenge the common order dated 30th August, 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The common impugned order is in respect of Assessment Years 2004-05 and 2005-06. Thus, two appeals. 2. Mr. Tejveer Singh, learned Counsel for the Revenue urges the following common reframed questions of law for our consideration : (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in holding that even though project exceeds the limits of commercial area of 2000 sq. ft. as prescribed in section 80IB(10), it would not apply to this project as this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ven though construction of amenities / additional parking was not carried out as per plan but regularised later ? (viii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in holding that assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80IB(10) ignoring the fact that during the course of survey, it was noticed that assessee has violated the sanction plan ? 3. Regarding question (i) : (a) Mr. Tejveer Singh, learned Counsel for the Revenue very fairly states that the issue raised herein stands concluded against the Revenue by the decision of the Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sarkar Builders, 375 ITR 392. (b) Therefore, the question as proposed does not give rise to any subst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (a) The impugned order of the Tribunal has while allowing the respondent assessee's appeal has held that balcony, terrace and garden area are not includible in builtup area of projects sanctioned prior to 1st April, 2005. (b) Mr. Tejveer Singh, learned Counsel for the Revenue very fairly states that the issue raised herein stands concluded against the Revenue and in favour of the respondent assessee by the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Raviraj Kothari Punjabi Associates (Income Tax Appeal No. 1628 of 2013) rendered on 24th April, 2015. (c) In the above view, the question as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained. 7. Regarding question (vii) : (a) The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he impugned order of the Tribunal as we found no submission / discussion therein on the issue. We, therefore, asked Mr. Tejveer Singh, learned Counsel for the Revenue were has this issue has been dealt with in the impugned order of the Tribunal. Mr. Singh invited our attention to para 3 of the impugned order which records that The Assessing Officer has taken a survey of the above projects and has also referred the issue of eligibility of deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Act to approved valuer. (b) We are unable to understand how the aforesaid fact recorded by the impugned order of the Tribunal has anything to do even remotely with the question as proposed i.e. that the construction of the housing project was not done by the resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
