2017 (2) TMI 390

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... (a)(i) of the Act? - Held that:- Tribunal hold that Brahma Avenue project is a different and independent project from the project of Brahma Estate. This finding of fact is not shown to be perverse in any manner. On the basis of above facts, the impugned order placed reliance inter alia upon decision of this Court in CIT vs. Vandana Properties [2012 (4) TMI 54 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ] to hold that Bra .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Tribunal was justified in holding that though the amended provision of section 80IB(10)(d) came into operation w.e.f. 01.04.2005 it was not applicable to the project 'Brahma Majestics' relating to A.Y. 2007-08 without appreciating and applying the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Isthimian Steamship Line (20 ITR 52) Karimtharuvi Tea Estate Ltd. ( .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... jpayee, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue very fairly states that the issues raised herein stand concluded against the Revenue by the decision of this Court in CIT vs. Happy Home Enterprises [2015] 372 ITR 1 (Bom) and decision of the Apex Court in CIT vs. Sarkar Builders [375 ITR 392]. (b) In the above view the questions as proposed do not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X