9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 984X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 - INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1574 OF 2014, INCOME TAX APPEAL NOS. 1864/2014, 1867/2014, 49/2015 AND 54/2015 - - - Dated:- 14-3-2017 - M. S. Sanklec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... satisfaction of clause (c) of Section 80IB(10) of the Act as issue no.(ii). 5. Regarding issue no.(i) : (a) These proceedings have emanated from orders passed under Section 153A of the Act after search and seizure operation. The impugned order records the fact that identical issue arose in the regular assessment proceedings in which orders were passed under Section 143(3) of the Act. It further records no new facts were found in respect of this issue in search operation. (b) From an order passed by the Tribunal emanating from regular assessment proceedings, the Revenue had preferred an appeal to this Court being Income Tax Appeal (L) Nos.1452 of 2010 and 1453 of 2010. On 1st March, 2011, this Court dismissed the Revenue's abov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 30th April, 2015 in favour of the respondent assessee. The distinction now sought to be raised by the Revenue was not upheld by the Apex Court which decided the issue in favour of the respondent assessee. (f) In view of the above facts, we were not inclined to admit the appeal on the above issue. However, inspite of the above, Mr. Chhotaray, the learned Counsel for the Revenue insists on arguing the matter and states that the decision of the coordinate bench of this Court in respondent assessee's own case i.e. Income Tax Appeal (L) No.1452 of 2010 and 1453 of 2010 dated 1st March, 2011 (supra) will not apply to the present facts as according to him that decision is incorrect. In support, he invited our attention to the synopsi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ond issue is concerned viz. satisfaction of clause (c) of Section 80IB(10) of the Act viz. size of the residential flat being less than 1000 sq.ft. has been found to be satisfied by the impugned order of the Tribunal while dismissing the Revenue's appeal. This by recording a finding of fact that even if two flats were combined into one flat, the facts on record reveals that the total combined area in no case exceeds 1000 sq.ft. (b) In fact, the CIT(A) in its order dated 26th March, 2012 records the fact that the respondent assessee had furnished details of the builtup area of the combined flats evidencing that the total area even on the flats being combined was less than 1000 sq.ft. as required under clause (c) of Section 80IB(10) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
